620 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  REPUBLICAN 
FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT 

IN   THE 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


BY 


OSCAR  S.  STRAUS,  LITT.D.,  LL.D. 

AUTHOR  OF   "  ROGER    WILLIAMS,   THE   PIONEER  OF   RELIGIOUS   LIBERTY 
"  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY   IN 
THE   UNITED   STATES,"   ETC. 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTORY  ESSAY 

BY 

M.  EMILE  DE  LAVELEYE 
[TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  FRENCH  EDITION] 


u  The  name  of  Republic  will  be  exalted,  until  every  neighbor,  yield- 
ing to  irresistible  attraction,  seeks  new  life  in  becoming  part  of  the 
great  whole;  and  the  national  example  will  be  more  puissant  than 
army  and  navy  for  the  conquest  of  the  world."— CHARLES  SUMNER'S 
41  Prophetic  Voices  Concerning  America." 


Second  Edition  Revised 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS 
NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 

3be  Ikntcftcrbocfcer  press 
1901 


COPYRIGHT  BY 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 
1885 

Second  Edition 

COPYRIGHT,  igoi,  BY 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 


TTbe  ftnfcfeerboefcer  £rm,  Dew  |?orft 


DEDICATED 

TO  THE   CHERISHED    MEMORY   OF 


PUBLISHER'S  NOTE. 

THIS  book  was  first  published  in  1885,  and 
two  editions  were  exhausted  shortly  there- 
after. The  present  edition  has  been  corrected 
and  revised  by  the  addition  of  some  new  ma- 
terial, by  reconstructing  the  concluding  pages, 
and  by  incorporating  an  introductory  historical 
essay,  written  for  the  French  edition,  by  the 
late  M.  Emile  de  Laveleye,  the  eminent  Belgian 
publicist  and  professor  of  the  University  of 
Liege. 


PREFACE. 


THE  reasons  why  the  people  in  the  thirteen 
American  colonies,  when  they  dissolved  their 
connection  with  Great  Britain,  adopted  as  their 
form  of  polity  a  Democratic  Republic,  are  usu- 
ally taken  for  granted  and  accepted  as  a  matter 
of  course.  I  have  nowhere  been  able  to  find 
more  than  a  passing  allusion  to  this  important 
subject.  During  the  winter  of  1883-4,  I  de- 
livered two  lectures,  one  in  the  city  of  New 
York  and  the  other  before  the  Long  Island 
Historical  Society  in  the  city  of  Brook- 
lyn. The  interest  awakened  by  these  lec- 
tures induced  me  to  further  investigate  the 
subject  and  embody  the  result  in  a  more  per- 
manent form.  That  this  little  treatise  is  ex- 
haustive of  the  subject  is  not  claimed,  but  some 
facts  are  presented  which  I  trust  may  be  deemed 
worthy  of  consideration.  The  older  and  more 
permanent  our  government  becomes,  the  greater 
will  be  the  interest  that  attaches  to  its  origin 

vii 


viii  Preface. 

and  development.  Historians  have  traced  the 
various  stages  of  this  development,  but  I  am 
not  aware  that  it  has  ever  been  attempted 
to  present  the  reasons  why  the  Republican 
form  of  government  was  selected  in  preference 
to  every  other  form  of  polity.  I  have  been  led 
to  ascribe  its  origin  mainly  to  ecclesiastical 
causes,  which  operated  from  the  time  the  Pil- 
grims set  foot  upon  our  continent,  and  to  the 
direct  and  indirect  influence  of  the  Hebrew 
Commonwealth.  Through  the  windows  of  the 
Puritan  churches  of  New  England  the  new 
West  looked  back  to  the  old  East. 


CONTENTS. 


DE  LAVELEYE'S  INTRODUCTORY  ESSAY    . 

The  influence  of  religion  on  political  institutions — 
Primitive  Christian  communities  democratic — Ro- 
manism and  monarchy — The  Reformation  was  a 
return  to  primitive  Christianity — France  of  to-day 
suffers  from  the  consequences  of  St.  Bartholomew — 
The  influences  of  Hebraism. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY.    AMERICAN  COLONIES  PRIOR 

TO  REVOLUTION i 

Other  revolutions — Forms  of  government  in  the  various 
colonies — Passing  of  stamp  act — Action  of  colonial 
assemblies — First  colonial  congress — Petition  to  the 
king — Declaration  of  Independence — Revolutions  of 
1688  and  1776 — "  Divine  right  "  of  kings — Important 
questions  of  political  development — Course  of  William 
III. — Authorities  for  doctrine  of  "  divine  right." 

CHAPTER  II. 
THE  POLITICAL  CAUSES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION       21 

Desire  for  independence  of  slow  growth  in  the  colonies 

— Nationality  of  the  various  colonists — Contributions  of 

colonists  to  England — Ambition  of  England — Molasses 

ix 


Contents. 

act  and  its  results — Birth  of  independence — Greed  of 
England — Stamp-act  congress — American  sympathies 
in  England — Franklin  before  the  House  of  Commons 
Resistance  to  parliamentary  encroachments  —  Boston 
massacre  —  Boston  tea  party — Port  bill — England's 
treatment  of  Canada — Action  on  port  bill. 


CHAPTER  III. 
RELIGIOUS  CAUSES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION       .      42 

Distinction  between  Puritans  and  Pilgrims — Colonists 
not  adventurers  —  Roger  Williams — Settlement  of 
Rhode  Island  —  Its  Jewish  form  of  government — 
Religious  intolerance  in  Virginia  and  Massachusetts 
— Acts  of  Virginia  Assembly — Attempt  to  erect  an 
episcopate  in  the  colonies — Parsons'  salaries  in  Vir- 
ginia— Attitude  of  different  sects  toward  revolution — 
Sects  in  the  various  colonies — Protestant  majority  in 
America. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  REPUBLIC     ...       70 

Disturbances  in  England  not  felt  by  the  colonies — 
Bible  and  theocracy  in  New  England — Cotton  Mather 
— Hebrew  commonwealth  as  a  model  of  government 
— Election-day  sermons — English  commonwealth  and 
its  failure — Other  republics. 

CHAPTER  V. 
MONARCHY  AND  THE  CHURCH       ...       88 

Primitive  Christians  —  Catholicism  — Union  of  church 
and  state — Doctrine  of  "  divine  right  " — Execution  of 
Charles  I. — Church  of  England — Episcopalians  in 
America. 


Contents.  xi 

CHAPTER  VI. 
THE  HEBREW  COMMONWEALTH,  THE   FIRST 

FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  ....  101 
Model  for  United  States — History  of  children  of  Israel 
— Separation  of  church  and  state — Recognition  of  civil 
equality — Theocratic  government  not  in  the  hands  of 
priests — Division  of  Hebrew  government — The  ' '  con- 
gregation"— Sidney  on  Hebrew  government — Laws  of 
Moses. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HEBREW  COMMON- 
WEALTH UPON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  REPUB- 
LICAN GOVERNMENT  IN  THE  UNITED 
STATES 118 

This  influence  not  always  recognized  —  Jonathan 
Mayhew — Other  sermons — Americans  compared  to 
Israelites  in  many  discourses — Hebrew  commonwealth 
also  held  up  as  a  model  in  political  writings — Offer  of 
the  soldiers  to  Washington — Monarchical  party  spirit 
— Thomas  Paine — Device  for  seal — Conclusions. 


INTRODUCTORY  ESSAY. 

BY  M.  EMILE  DE  LAVELEYE. 

[Translated from  the  French  edition.] 

IN  studying  the  science  of  institutions  and 
governments,  most  writers  have  failed  to  recog- 
nize that  overwhelming  influence  exercised  by  -/ 
the  religious  ideas  of  the  people  in  the  shaping 
and  in  the  practical  working  of  political  con- 
stitutions. Recently,  Count  de  Franqueville, 
in  a  careful  work  treating  upon  the  subject  of 
government  in  England,  stated  that  Protestant- 
ism had  in  no  way  contributed  to  the  develop- 
ment of  English  liberty. 

It  was  Montesquieu,  however,  who  said, 
'  The  Catholic  religion  is  better  adapted  to  a  ^  , 
monarchy,  Protestantism  the  better  suited  to 
a  republic."  I  do  not  think  this  truth  has 
been  more  clearly  demonstrated  than  by  Ed- 
gard  Quinet  in  his  "  Revolution  Franchise." 


J 


xiv  Introductory  Essay. 

Here  the  author  shows  that  the  prodigious 
/  effort  made  by  France  to  obtain  and  organize 
liberty  simply  ended  with  the  Caesarism  of 
Napoleon.  The  reason  for  this  was  that 
political  reform  did  not  have  for  its  founda- 
tion the  principle  of  religious  reform. 

To-day  we  can  demonstrate  by  evidence 
what  intelligent  thinkers  only  began  to  discern 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  because  the  decisive 
influence  which  forms  of  worship  had,  not  only 
on  politics  but  also  on  political  economy,  was 
not  visible  then.  To-day  this  principle  shines 
forth,  throwing  increasing  light  on  contempo- 
raneous events.  The  influence  which  religion 
f  exercises  on  man  is  so  profound  that  its  con- 
stant tendency  must  be  to  shape  State  in- 
stitutions in  forms  borrowed  from  religious 
organization.  *  *  *  A  question  so  often 
asked  is  this:  "  Why  have  there  been  success- 
ful revolutions  in  the  Low  Countries,  in  Eng- 
land, in  America,  while  the  French  Revolution 
came  to  naught  ?"  M.  Guizot  has  written  a 
monograph  to  elucidate  this  subject  which, 
thoroughly  replying  to  the  question,  contains 
the  secret  which  rules  our  destinies.  On  my 
part  I  do  not  hesitate  in  saying  this  much :  It 


Introductory  Essay.  xv 

is  because  in  the  first  of  these  examples  revo- 
lutions were  carried  out  in  Protestant  countries, 
and  on  that  account  were  successful.  In  the 
other  case,  it  failed  because  the  country  was 
Catholic. 

Voltaire,  before  this,  said  as  much.  He 
asked:  "  How  is  it  that  the  governments  of 
France  and  England  are  as  different  as  those 
of  Morocco  or  Venice  ?  Is  it  -not  because  the 
English,  always  wrangling  with  Rome,  finally 
shook  off  a  hateful  yoke,  while  a  lighter- 
minded  people  pretended  to  laugh  and  dance 
in  their  chains  ?  "  Voltaire  spoke  the  truth, 
but  did  he  not  excite  to  laughter  and  lead  in 
the  dance  ?  There  was  a  closer  touch  between 
France  and  England  when  the  French  freed 
themselves  from  the  yoke  of  the  Church. 

Wherever  the  sovereign  lays  claim  to  di- 
vine right,  there  liberty  cannot  be  established. 
The  reasons  are  evident.  The  power  which 
talks  and  acts  in  the  name  of  God  is  necessa- 
rily absolute.  Orders  from  Heaven  are  not  to 
be  discussed.  Simple  mortals  can  only  bow 
and  obey.  I  know  of  no  exception  to  this 
rule.  *  *  *  Primitive  Christianity  favored 
most  particularly  the  establishment  of  liberal 


xvi  Introductory  Essay. 

and  democratic  institutions.  Doubtless,  on 
its  ascetic  side,  it  detached  man  from  his 
worldly  interests,  while  it  did  not  lessen  his 
claims  as  a  citizen.  But  in  elevating  and  puri- 
fying morals  he  became  better  fitted  for  self- 
government  and  a  free  existence.  During  the 
early  centuries  in  Christian  communities  there 
was  perfect  equality,  because  all  the  power 
was  derived  from  the  people,  whose  decision 
and  opinion  controlled  the  government.  There 
were  no  purer  democratic  republics  than  the 
primitive  Christian  communities.  Accordingly, 
when  the  Presbyterians  of  the  sixteenth  century 
returned  to  their  old  Church  organization,  they 
could  not  help  but  found  a  State  with  republi- 
can institutions.  *  *  * 

The  history  of  the  institution  of  the  Church 
shows  a  steady  progress  towards  concentration 
of  power.  Drawing  itself  away  from  that  de- 
mocracy, that  equality  of  early  Christianity,  the 
Church  has  finally  in  the  nineteenth  century 
become  the  exponent  of  papal  infallibility;  a 
more  complete  despotism  than  this  it  would 
be  difficult  to  imagine.  It  was  a  democratic 
republic  at  the  start,  but  at  the  finish  an  aris- 
tocracy of  bishops  independent  of  the  Pope.  If 


Introductory  Essay.  xvii 

civil  society  tends  to  mould  itself  within  the 
lines  of  a  religious  association,  the  facts  show 
that  it  is  invariably  under  the  control  of  a 
despotic  absolutism.  It  is  so  understood  by 
the  partisans  of  the  Church. 

Bossuet,  in  his  "  Politique  Tir£e  de  1'ficri- 
ture  Sainte,"  traces  those  conditions  which 
must  exist  in  a  Catholic  country.  "  God 
established  kings  as  His  ministers,  and  through 
them  He  reigns  over  the  people."  "  Royal 
authority  is  absolute."  "  The  prince  need 
render  account  to  no  one  for  his  actions." 
!<  Princes  must  be  obeyed  as  you  would  obey 
the  dictates  of  justice."  '  They  are  the  gods 
and  participate  in  some  way  in  divine  inde- 
pendence." "  As  for  the  subjects,  who  may 
oppose  the  violence  of  a  prince,  they  may 
only  remonstrate  in  a  respectful  manner,  but 
without  mutiny  or  murmur." 

The  logical  deduction  from  all  this  must  be, 
that  in  a  Catholic  country  the  government  is 
necessarily  despotic ;  first,  because  such  is  the 
manner  of  the  Church ;  secondly,  because  kings 
held,  as  it  was  taught,  their  power  direct  from 
God  or  the  Pope,  which  power  could  be  neither 
curtailed  nor  controlled. 


xviii  Introductory  Essay. 

Bossuet,  in  his  own  singularly  pompous  and 
vigorous  language,  gives  the  definition  of  a 
monarchy  formed  in  accordance  with  Roman 
Catholic  tradition,  just  as  it  shaped  itself  from 
the  Rome  of  the  Caesars  and  the  popes. 

4  You  must  obey  the  prince,  as  you  would 
justice  itself.  Princes  are  gods  and  somehow 
participate  in  divine  independence.  As  in 
God  is  united  all  perfection,  so  in  the  personal- 
ity of  the  prince  is  the  concentration  of  all 
power.  If  God  were  to  withdraw  His  hand, 
the  world  would  lapse  into  chaos.  Were 
authority  to  cease  in  the  kingdom,  all  would 
fall  into  confusion.  Bethink  you  of  the  king 
in  his  closet.  From  thence  speed  the  orders 
which  govern  the  magistrates,  the  officers,  the 
provinces,  and  the  armies.  It  is  the  semblance 
of  God,  seated  on  His  throne  in  the  heavenly 
heights,  commanding  all  the  forces  of  nature. 
The  wicked  may  try  to  hide  their  heads,  but 
the  light  of  God  follows  them  everywhere. 
This  is  why  God  gives  the  prince  the  power  of 
discovering  all  secret  wiles.  His  eyes  and 
hands  are  everywhere.  The  birds  in  the  sky 
tell  him  all  that  happens.  He  has  received 
from  God  a  certain  circumspection  which  is 


REVERSE. 


The  first  design  of  the  Seal  of  the  United  States,  recom- 
mended by  Franklin,  Adams,  and  Jefferson,  the  Committee 
appointed  immediately  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
had  been  read,  July  4,  1 776. 

[From  a  drawing  by  Benj.  J.  Lossing  from  the  description  ] 
(See  p.  140) 


Introductory  Essay.  xix 

akin  to  a  divine  penetration.  If  he  discovers 
an  intrigue,  his  arms  are  so  long  that  he  can 
seize  his  enemies.  From  the  most  remote 
regions  of  the  world  he  can  drag  them  from  the 
bottom  of  abysses.  There  is  no  refuge  from 
such  a  power.'* 

The  Reformation,  on  the  contrary,  was  a 
return  to  primitive  Christianity,  and  above  all 
towards  the  democracy  of  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  was  alive  with  the  / 
breath  of  liberty  and  resistance  to  absolutism. 
It  tended  towards  the  birth  of  republican  and 
constitutional  institutions. 

The  Protestant  acknowledges  in  his  religion 
but  a  single  authority,  that  of  the  Bible.  He 
would  not  bow  before  the  authority  of  a  man 
as  would  the  Catholic.  He  examines,  he  dis- 
cusses all  questions  for  himself. 

Calvinists,  Presbyterians,  having  reestab- 
lished republicanism  within  the  Church,  the 
Protestants  in  logical  sequence  brought  into  l^ 
their  social  polity  the  same  principles  and 
habits.  The  charge  brought  by  Lamennais 
against  the  Reformers  is  perfectly  true.  He 
said :  "  They  denied  that  power  was  derivable 
from  religious  bodies.  It  followed  that  they 


xx  Introductory  Essay. 

also  denied  that  power  was  derivable  from 
political  bodies.  They  substituted  in  both 
cases  such  reason  and  will  as  man  might  pos- 
sess, in  opposition  to  the  reason  and  will  of 
God.  Hence,  man  was  independent,  and  bent 
on  perfect  liberty.  He  was  his  own  master, 
his  own  king,  his  own  God." 

Luther  and  Calvin  did  not  advocate  resist- 
ance to  tyranny ;  they  rather  condemned  it  and 
extolled  obedience.  Neither  did  they  admit 
the  fullest  liberty  of  conscience.  Despite 
them,  however,  the  principle  of  political  and 
religious  liberty,  that  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people,  is  the  logical  outcome  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. The  proof  of  this  was  discoverable  in 
the  natural  fruitage.  The  writers  of  the  Ref- 
ormation invariably  advocated  the  rights  of 
the  people,  and  wherever  Protestantism  tri- 
umphed, there  free  institutions  were  estab- 
lished. Their  enemies  were  not  deceived. 
They  declared  it  an  evil  thing,  this  union  of 
reform  and  liberty. 

'  The  Reformers,"  said  a  Venetian  envoy 
in  France  during  the  sixteenth  century, 
"  preached  that  the  king  has  no  authority 
over  his  subjects.  This  way  of  thinking  must 


Introductory  Essay.  xxi 

lead  them  towards  a  government  something 
like  that  existing  in  Switzerland  and  to  the  de- 
struction of  monarchical  form  of  government."  ! 

Montluc  wrote:  "  The  Ministers  preach  that 
kings  have  no  other  power  but  that  which 
pleases  the  people.  Others  preach  that  the 
nobility  are  no  better  than  they  are.  That  is 
the  spirit  of  this  liberal  Calvinism  which  tends 
towards  equality."  a 

Tavannes,  time  and  time  again,  notes  the 
democratic  tendency  of  the  Huguenots. 
'  They  are  republicans  within  the  royal  states, 
having  means  of  their  own,  with  their  soldiery, 
their  distinct  finances,  and  bent  on  establishing 
a  popular  and  democratic  government."  3 

The  great  jurist  Dumoulin  denounced  the 
Protestant  pastors  before  the  Parliament.  He 
said:  "  They  have  no  other  desire  than  to  re- 
duce France  into  a  popular  state,  and  to  make 
it  a  republic  like  Geneva.  They  are  trying  to 
abolish  hereditary  rights  by  placing  on  an 
equal  footing  the  lowest-born  with  the  most 
exalted.  They  think  that  all  men,  as  the 

1  M.  Laurent,  "  La  Revolution  Franchise,"  t.  I.,  §  2,  ^[  3. 

2  Blaise  de  Montluc,  "  Collection  de  Memoires  de  Petitot." 

3  Tavannes,  meme  collection,  t.  XXIII.,  72. 


xxii  Introductory  Essay. 

children  of  Adam,  are  equal  by  divine  and 
natural  law." 

The  thoughts  attributed  to  the  Reformers 
have  the  same  fundamental  ideas  as  those  of 
the  Revolution.  If  France  had  adopted  them 
in  the  sixteenth  century  she  would  have  en- 
joyed liberty,  self-government,  and  would  have 
kept  to  them. 

In  1622  Gregory  XV.  wrote  to  the  King  of 
France,  begging  him  to  end  the  quarrel  in 
Geneva,  which  was  then  the  headquarters  of 
Calvinism  and  republicanism.  In  France,  after 
the  death  of  King  Henry  IV.,  the  Duke  de 
Rohan,  who  was  a  Huguenot,  wanted  to  form 
a  republic,  declaring  that  the  time  for  kings 
had  passed  away. 

The  reproach  has  been  cast  on  the  Protestant 
nobility  for  seeking  to  split  up  France  into 
petty  republican  states  like  Switzerland,  and 
the  chief  merit  of  the  Ligue — so  it  was  argued 
—  consisted  in  having  maintained  French 
unity.  What  the  Huguenots  wanted  were,  un- 
questionably, local  autonomy,  decentralization, 
and  a  federal  system  which  would  foster  com- 
munal and  provincial  liberty.  That  is  what 
France  is  endeavoring  in  vain  to  establish  to- 


Introductory  Essay.  xxiii 

day.  It  was  the  blind  passion  for  unity  and 
uniformity  which  wrecked  the  Revolution,  and 
which  too  often  caused  France  to  revert  to 
despotism.  Calvin  wished  that  "  the  ministers 
of  the  Sacred  Writ  should  be  elected  by  the 
consent  and  with  the  approbation  of  the 
people,  and  that  pastors  should  preside  over 
the  elections."  That  was  the  system  Calvin- 
ists  wanted  to  introduce  into  France. 

l<  In  the  year  1620,"  says  Tavannes,  "  their 
state  was  certainly  a  democratic  one,  with 
mayors  and  ministers  holding  all  authority. 
They  did  not  belong  to  the  noble  class.  Had 
they  accomplished  their  purpose,  the  condition 
of  France  would  have  become  about  the  same 
as  that  of  Switzerland,  with  the  abolition  of 
princes  and  of  the  gentry." 

No  sooner  had  the  Reform  placed  the  gos- 
pel in  the  hands  of  the  peasants,  than  they 
clamored  in  the  name  of  Christian  liberty  for 
the  abolition  of  serfdom  and  a  recognition  of 
their  ancient  privileges.  Everywhere  claims 
were  advanced  for  natural  rights,  liberty,  toler- 
ance, and  the  sovereignty  of  the  people.  The 
writings  of  the  period  show  this  condition  of 
thought.  There  may  be  cited,  among  many 


xxiv  Introductory  Essay. 

publications  of  the  time,  a  celebrated  pamphlet 
written  by  Languet,  "  Junii  Bruti  Celtae  vin- 
diciae  contra  tyrannos,  de  principe  in  populum 
populique  in  principem  legitima  potestate." 
In  the  dialogue  he  writes  about  "  the  author- 
ity of  the  prince  and  the  liberty  of  the  peo- 
pie."  ' 

These  ideas,  which  stand  at  the  base  of 
modern  liberty,  always  found  their  most  elo- 
quent defenders  in  Protestantism.  Jurieu,  the 
minister,  stood  as  their  champion  against  Bos- 
suet  in  a  celebrated  debate.  Locke  was  their 
exponent  in  a  scientific  form.  Montesquieu, 
Voltaire,  and  other  political  writers  of  the 
eighteenth  century  all  borrowed  arguments 
from  Locke,  and  from  them  was  born  the 
French  Revolution.  But  long  before  that, 
these  ideas  had  found  their  application,  and 
with  lasting  effect,  in  Protestant  States.  First 
it  came  about  in  Holland,  then  in  England, 
and  above  all  in  America. 

The  famous  Edict  of  July  16,  1581,  in  which 
the  States-General  of  the  Low  Countries  pro- 
claimed the  forfeiture  of  the  King  of  Spain,  is 

1  "  Memoires  de  1'Etat  de  France  sous  Charles  IX.,"  t.  III., 
57-64.  See  also  "  Revolution  Fran9aise,"  I.,  345. 


Introductory  Essay.  xxv 

the  clearest  consecration  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people.  To  dethrone  a  king  it  was  neces- 
sary to  invoke  this  principle  :  "  Subjects  are 
not  created  by  God  for  the  prince,  so  that  the 
prince  must  be  obeyed  in  all  matters  and 
things,  according  to  his  pleasure,  but  rather 
the  prince  depends  on  his  subjects,  and  over 
these  he  may  not  be  the  prince  save  to  govern 
them  according  to  right  and  reason."  The 
edict  went  on  further  to  say  that  the  people, 
in  order  to  escape  from  the  tyranny  of  a 
despot,  were  forced  to  withdraw  their  obedi- 
ence. "  There  remains  no  other  method 
whereby  we  may  conserve  and  defend  our 
ancient  liberty,  our  women,  children,  and  our 
descendants,  in  whose  behalf,  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  nature,  we  are  ready  to  risk 
our  lives  and  our  means." 

In  England  the  Revolution  of  1648  was  car- 
ried out  on  the  same  principles.  Milton  and 
other  republicans  of  that  epoch  defended  these 
principles  with  admirable  vigor  and  spirit. 

It  has  been  our  custom  to  honor  the  famous 
principles  of  '89  as  born  of  the  French  Revo- 
lution. This  is  a  decided  historical  error.  In 
France  eloquent  discourses  have  been  devoted 


xxvi  Introductory  Essay. 

to  this  subject.  It  is  only  recently  that  the 
most  sacred  of  all  rights,  liberty  of  conscience, 
has  been  respected.1  Puritans  and  Quakers, 
proclaimed  and  practised  it  two  hundred  years 
before  in  America,  and  it  is  from  there  and 
England  that  Europe  took  the  idea,  towards 
the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

As  early  as  1620  the  constitution  of  Virginia 
established  a  representative  government,  trial 
by  jury,  and  the  principle  that  taxes  should 
be  only  voted  for  by  those  who  had  to  pay 
them.  *  *  *  A  man  arose  (1633)  who 
claimed  not  alone  tolerance,  but  complete 
equality  in  all  worship  before  the  civil  law, 
and  on  this  principle  he  founded  a  State.  The 
man  was  Roger  Williams,  and  his  name,  barely 
known  in  our  continent,  is  worthy  of  being 
inscribed  among  the  benefactors  of  humanity. 
He  it  was  who  first  spoke  out  for  liberty  of 
conscience  in  a  world  which  for  four  thousand 
years  had  been  steeped  in  the  blood  of  intoler 
ance.  Descartes  had  declared  only  in  favor  of 
free  research  in  philosophy.  Roger  Williams 
was  the  champion  of  religious  liberty  as  a 

1  See  a  very  instructive  article  by  Prevost-Paradol,  Revue 
des  Deux  Mondes,  1858. 


Introductory  Essay.  xxvii 

political  right.  "  Persecution  for  cause  of  con- 
science," he  said,  "  is  most  evidently  and 
lamentably  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  Jesus 
Christ."  '  He  who  commands  the  ship  of 
state  can  maintain  order  on  board  and  conduct 
his  vessel  into  port,  even  though  the  entire 
crew  does  not  attend  divine  service."  '  The 
civil  magistrate's  power  extends  only  to  the 
bodies  and  goods  and  outward  estate  of  men ; 
it  cannot  intervene  in  matters  of  faith,  even 
to  stop  a  church  from  apostasy  and  heresy." 
'  The  removal  of  the  yoke  of  soul-oppression 
will  prove  an  act  of  mercy  and  righteousness 
to  the  enslaved  nations,  so  it  is  of  binding 
force  to  engage  the  whole  and  every  interest 
and  conscience  to  preserve  the  common  liberty 
and  peace." 

In  Bancroft's  admirable  history  you  may 
read  how  Roger  Williams  founded  the  city  of 
Providence  in  the  State  of  Rhode  Island,  on 
principles  then  unknown  in  Europe,  save  per- 
haps in  the  Low  Countries.  In  1641,  when  the 
constitution  was  established,  all  the  citizens 
were  called  on  to  vote.  The  founders  styled 
themselves  a  "  democracy,"  and  it  was  one  in 
the  fullest  sense,  just  as  Rousseau  afterwards 


xxviii  Introductory  Essay. 

understood  it.  The  people  directly  governed 
themselves.  All  citizens,  without  distinction 
of  belief,  were  equals  before  the  law,  and  all 
the  laws  were  confirmed  in  the  popular  assem- 
blies. It  was  the  most  radical  self-government 
ever  known  among  human  societies,  and  it  has 
lasted  for  over  two  centuries  without  trouble 
and  without  revolution. 

The  Quakers  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jer- 
sey founded  their  States  on  similar  principles. 
The  power  dwells  with  the  people.  "  We  put 
the  power  in  the  people."  That  is  the  basis 
of  the  New  Jersey  constitution.  The  principal 
clauses  are  as  follows:  No  man,  nor  assem- 
blage of  men,  has  power  over  conscience.  No 
one  at  any  time  nor  under  any  pretext  can  be 
persecuted  or  harmed  in  any  manner  whatever 
on  account  of  his  religious  opinions.  The 
General  Assembly  is  to  be  named  by  secret 
ballot.  Every  man  may  elect  and  be  elected. 
Electors  give  their  deputies  obligatory  instruc- 
tions. Should  a  deputy  not  fulfil  his  functions 
he  can  be  prosecuted.  Ten  commissioners, 
elected  by  the  Assembly,  exercise  executive 
functions.  Judges  and  constables  are  elected 
by  the  people  for  two  years.  Judges  preside 


Introductory  Essay.  xxix 

over  the  jury,  but  the  deciding  power  is  exer- 
cised by  the  twelve  citizens  composing  it.  No 
one  can  suffer  imprisonment  for  debt.  Or- 
phans are  cared  for  at  the  expense  of  the  State. 
Instruction  is  a  public  service  paid  for  by  the 
State.  Almost  similar  principles  were  carried 
out  in  Pennsylvania  and  Connecticut. 

That  man  is  his  own  master,  that  he  is  free, 
that  no  one  can  claim  service  of  him,  or  make 
a  demand  on  him  without  his  own  consent,  and 
that  government,  justice,  and  all  other  powers 
are  derived  from  the  people,  this,  as  an  assem- 
blage of  principles  which  modern  society  strives 
to  enforce,  is  derived  from  German  tradition. 
The  origin  of  them  all  is  found  among  most 
races  before  the  development  of  royal  powers. 
These  principles,  smothered  in  the  Middle  Ages 
by  feudalism,  and  after  the  fifteenth  century 
by  centralization  and  absolute  monarchism, 
were  only  kept  alive  in  Switzerland,  England, 
Holland,  and  in  the  United  States.  This"! 
breath  of  democracy  was  due  to  the  Reforma- 
tion and  to  Hebraism,  and  it  was  only  in  j 
the  Protestant  countries  that  these  were 
maintained,  and  gave  to  the  people  order  and 
prosperity.  If  France  had  not  persecuted, 


xxx  Introductory  Essay. 

slaughtered,  exiled,  her  own  offspring  who 
were  converts  to  Protestantism,  she  would  have 
developed  those  germs  of  liberty  and  of  self- 
government  such  as  have  been  preserved  in 
provincial  States.  This  as  a  truth  was  abso- 
lutely established  in  a  book  written  by  M. 
Gustave  Garrison  a  number  of  years  ago. 
Recent  investigations  and  current  events  bring 
every  year  additional  arguments  in  support  of 
this. 

In  the  assemblies  held  at  Rochelle,  Gren- 
oble, the  States-General  of  Orleans,  the  spirit 
of  liberty,  the  true  parliamentary  spirit,  as- 
serted itself  as  positively  as  it  did  in  the  Eng- 
lish Parliament.  There  may  be  found  uttered 
V  in  the  clear-cut,  strong  voice  of  Calvin,  those 
very  words  which  were  so  telling  in  the  interest 
of  religion  and  state  polity. 

'  We  will  know  how  to  defend  against  the 
King  our  cities  without  a  king,"  said  the 
Huguenots.  .  There  can  be  no  question  that 
had  they  triumphed,  the  Huguenots  would 
have  founded  a  constitutional  monarchy,  such 
as  England  had,  or  a  federal  republic,  as  ex- 
isted in  the  Low  Countries.  Had  the  French 
nobility  kept  their  spirit  of  independence,  that 


Introductory  Essay.  xxxi 

opposition  within  the  law  which  had  been 
borrowed  from  Protestantism  would  have  put 
limits  to  the  royal  power,  and  France  would 
have  escaped  the  oriental  despotism  of  Louis 
XV.  and  his  successors.  These  kings  demol- 
ished the  best  characteristics  of  the  nobles. 

M.  Quinet,  in  his  work  on  the  Revolution, 
pronounces  a  severe  but  just  judgment  on  the 
French  nobility  of  the  epoch.  "  Having  sold 
their  religious  faith,  how  could  they  establish 
political  faith  ?  In  the  Fronde  the  nobility  lack- 
ing ambition  showed  their  spirit  for  intrigue. 
Rebelling  against  Mazarin  they  prostrated 
themselves  at  once  when  the  King  appeared. 
The  fraud  of  their  pretensions  was  evident. 
They  never  guided  the  French  towards  liberty." 

Francis  I.,  when  he  gave  the  signal  for  the 
prosecution  of  the  Reformers;  Henry  IV.  in 
abjuring  Protestantism,  betrayed,  as  did  the 
nobility,  the  true  interests  of  France.  That 
saying,  "  Paris  vaut  bien  une  messe,"  which 
the  majority  of  French  historians  regard  as 
indicative  of  practical  sense,  is  revolting  in  its 
cynicism.  To  sell  yourself,  to  deny  your  faith 
for  material  advantages,  is  certainly  an  act 
which  any  honest  man  must  scorn. 


xxxii  Introductory  Essay. 

France  suffers  to-day  from  this  spirit 'as  from 
the  dire  consequences  of  St.  Bartholomew  and 
the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes.  Never 
were  there  more  terrible  attacks  made  on  lib- 
erty of  conscience. 

What  France  is  most  in  need  of  are  men, 
who,  though  they  may  not  break  with  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  past,  must  nevertheless  accept 
the  new  ideas.  Republicans  are  generally 
hostile  or  indifferent  to  all  ideas  of  religion, 
just  as  were  our  ancestors,  or  the  revolution- 
ists of  the  last  century.  They  are  without  that 
foundation  on  which  they  can  build  a  solid  edi- 
fice. Those,  again,  who  defend  religious  ideas 
wish  to  live  under  the  old  regime,  and  throw 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  all  reform. 

All  modern  people  yearn  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  representative  and  constitutional  sys- 
tem. This  English  system,  the  seeds  of  which 
were  first  grown  in  the  soil  of  the  ancient 
Germanic  constitution  which  gave  life  to  Prot- 
estantism, does  not  seem  capable  of  being 
transplanted  so  as  to  thrive  in  a  Catholic 
country.  *  *  * 

Mr.  Oscar  S.  Straus,  Minister  of  the  United 
States,  gives  in  a  most  interesting  work 


Introductory  Essay.          xxxiii 

the  proofs  of  that  great  influence  which  the 
remembrance  of  the  Old  Testament  wrought 
on  the  liberties  of  the  English  colonies  in 
North  America,  and  how  it  shaped  the  form 
of  government  adopted  by  them. 

At  the  period  of  the  American  Revolution 
education  was  limited.  There  were  not  many 
newspapers,  and  they  were  rarely  issued  more 
than  once  a  week.  The  number  of  subscribers 
was  but  few.  It  was  the  pulpit  which  took 
their  place.  Pastors  in  their  sermons  dealt 
with  politics  not  less  than  with  religion.  Ser- 
mons were,  for  the  people,  the  principal  sources 
of  general  instruction.  These  pastors  in  the 
way  of  history  knew  above  all  that  of  the 
Jewish  people.  It  was  in  the  Bible  they  un- 
ceasingly sought  both  inspiration  and  example. 
"  If  the  United  States  has  become  republican, 
it  is  due  to  the  fact,"  writes  Mr.  Straus,  "  that 
the  Hebrew  Commonwealth  presented  to  these 
pastors  the  model  of  a  Democratic  Republic." 

Sir  Henry  Maine,  in  his  "  Popular  Govern- 
ment," states  that  the  republican  form  of  gov- 
ernment was  discredited  towards  the  close  of 
the  eighteenth  century.  Notwithstanding  the 
genius  of  a  Cromwell,  the  English  Republic 
brought  about  the  restoration  of  the  Stuarts. 


xxxiv          Introductory  Essay. 

The  greater  part  of  the  small  continental 
republics  were  but  oligarchies  like  Venice. 
The  United  Provinces  of  the  Low  Countries 
were  in  rapid  decline.  This  is  what  Franklin 
said:  "  We  have  examined  the  different  forms 
of  those  republics,  which,  having  been  origi- 
nally formed  with  the  seed  of  their  own  dis- 
solution, now  no  longer  exist,  and  we  have 
viewed  modern  States  all  round  Europe,  but 
find  none  of  their  constitutions  suitable  to  our 
circumstances."  ' 

Before  the  colonists  was  the  primitive  con- 
stitution of  the  Hebrews.  Algernon  Sidney, 
whose  discourses  on  government  were  familiar 
to  the  founders  of  the  American  federation, 
had  eulogized  this  constitution.  "  This  gov- 
ernment is  composed  of  three  organisms,  be- 
sides the  magistrates  of  the  several  tribes  and 
cities:  they  had  a  chief  magistrate  who  was 
\  called  a  judge,  and  a  council  composed  of  sev- 
enty chosen  men,  and  the  general  assembly  of 
the  people." 

Is  this  not  an  illustration  of  the  three  organ- 
isms of  the  American  Constitution,  the  Presi- 
dent, the  Senate,  and  a  popular  Chamber  ? 
The  first  question  to  be  answered  was  this:  Had 

1  Bigelow's  "Franklin,"  III.,  388. 


Introductory  Essay.  xxxv 

the  people  a  right  to  rebel  against  the  power  of 
the  King  of  England  ?  The  doctrine  of  divine 
right  and  absolute  submission  was  upheld  by 
the  Established  Church,  and  it  advanced  cer- 
tain passages  in  St.  Paul  and  the  Evangelists 
recommending  obedience  to  the  established 
powers.  But  the  Puritans  fought  against  this, 
the  teaching  of  servitude,  and  invoked  the  in- 
spired words  which  resounded  with  the  de- 
mocracy of  the  prophets  and  of  Samuel: 
"  Rebellion  to  tyrants  is  obedience  to  God." 

Here  is  an  extract  from  a  sermon  delivered 
by  a  famous  preacher,  Jonathan  Mayhew,  in 
Boston,  May,  1766.  It  gives  an  idea  of  that 
language  which,  spoken  in  the  pulpit,  fired  the 
souls  of  the  people  in  resisting  oppression : 

God  gave  Israel  a  king  in  his  anger,  be- 
cause they  had  not  sense  and  virtue  enough  to 
like  a  free  commonwealth  and  to  have  Himself 
for  their  king — where  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
there  is  liberty." 

A  theologian  who  then  enjoyed  great  re- 
nown, Samuel  Langdon,  President  of  Harvard 
College,  in  a  famous  sermon  delivered  before 
the  Massachusetts  Congress,  May  31,  1775, 
thus  expresses  himself: 


xxx vi  Introductory  Essay. 

'  The  Jewish  government,  according  to  the 
original  constitution,  which  was  divinely  estab- 
lished, if  considered  merely  in  a  civil  view  was 
a  perfect  republic,  and  let  those  who  cry  up 
the  divine  right  of  kings  consider  that  the 
form  of  government  which  had  a  proper  claim 
to  a  divine  establishment  was  so  far  from  in- 
cluding the  idea  of  a  king,  that  it  was  a  high 
crime  for  Israel  to  ask  to  be  in  this  respect  like 
other  nations,  and  when  they  were  thus  grati- 
fied it  was  rather  as  a  just  punishment  for  their 
folly." 

In  another  sermon  delivered  before  the 
Massachusetts  Congress,  Simeon  Howard,  the 
pastor,  took  for  his  text  the  words  of  Exodus 
xviii.,  2:  "  Thou  shalt  provide  out  of  all  thy 
people  able  men,  such  as  fear  God,  men  of 
truth,  hating  covetousness,  and  place  such  over 
them  to  be  rulers."  '  This  shows  that  the 
Israelites  always  exercised  the  right  of  electing 
the  chiefs  of  their  nation." 

The  famous  Tom  Paine,  so  well  known  for 
his  enthusiasm  for  the  French  Revolution, 
which  he  expressed  with  such  eloquence  in 
Paris,  wrote  in  his  book  on  "Common  Sense," 
the  one  which  Washington  admired:  "  That 


Introductory  Essay.          xxxvii 

the  Almighty  hath  here  entered  his  protest 
against  monarchical  government  is  true,  or  the 
Scriptures  are  false." 

There  is  a  curious  fact  which  shows  how 
thoroughly  the  men  of  the  American  Revolu- 
tion were  inspired  by  the  remembrance  of  the 
Old  Testament.  There  was  a  committee  ap- 
pointed on  the  very  day  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  whose  duty  it  was  to  choose  the 
legend  and  the  design  for  the  seal  of  the 
United  States.  The  design  was  to  represent 
the  Egyptians  engulfed  in  the  waters  of  the 
Red  Sea,  and  Moses  guiding  the  Jews,  and 
commanding  the  waters  to  close  over  Pharaoh. 
The  motto  selected  was :  ' '  Rebellion  to  tyrants 
is  obedience  to  God."  The  committee  was 
composed  of  Franklin,  Adams,  and  Jefferson. 

Such  are  some  of  the  instructive  proofs  Mr. 
Straus  brings  to  bear  in  a  thesis,  which  I  think 
may  be  considered  as  fully  demonstrated  by 
him. 

At  the  same  time  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  in  order  to  establish  free  societies  and 
self-government,  Americans  had  only  to  de- 
velop those  forms  of  popular  government  which 
they  derived  from  their  Anglo-Saxon  ancestors. 


xxxviii         Introductory  Essay. 

These  they  revived  with  their  essentially  demo- 
cratic characteristics  in  the  new  land.  The 
General  Assembly  of  the  township  is  nothing 
else  than  the  old  tunscip  of  the  Saxons,  where 
men  free  and  united  administered  for  them- 
selves their  general  business,  in  accordance 
with  the  formula  recorded  by  Tacitus  in  his 
"  Germania, "  "  De  minoribus  principes  con- 
sultant, de  majoribus  omnes."  This  is  a  point 
which  Professor  Edward  Freeman  has  pre- 
sented in  its  fullest  sense  in  his  work,  "  An 
Introduction  to  the  American  Constitutional 
History."  The  sources  of  the  republican  gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  are  the  Bible 
and  the  political  institutions  of  the  Germans. 

To  conclude,  I  do  not  think  I  could  do  bet- 
ter than  by  reproducing  the  few  words  which 
M.  Anatole  Leroy-Beaulieu  puts  in  the  mouth 
of  an  Israelite  who  is  supposably  present  at  a 
banquet  celebrating  the  centenary  of  1789. 
This  article,  written  by  an  eminent  French- 
man, is  purely  an  imaginative  sketch,  but  it 
puts  in  the  cleverest  way  and  in  striking  relief 
a  great  truth. 

"  The  whole  year  1789  contains  the  germ  of 
Hebraism.  The  idea  of  right  and  social  justice 


Introductory  Essay.  xxxix 

is  an  Israelitish  idea.  The  advent  of  justice 
on  this  earth  has  been  the  dream  of  our  people. 
To  find  the  first  source  of  man's  rights,  we 
must  go  back  farther  than  the  Reform  or 
the  Renaissance,  farther  back  even  than  an- 
tiquity or  the  Gospel,  as  far  back  as  the  Bible, 
the  Thora,  and  the  prophets.  Our  rabbis,  the 
Isaiahs  and  Jeremiahs,  were  the  first  revolu- 
tionists. They  announced  that  the  hills  should 
be  levelled,  the  valleys  filled  up.  All  modern 
revolutions  have  been  the  echo  of  that  voice 
which  reverberated  in  Ephraim.  We  were  still 
herded  in  the  ghetto,  on  our  shoulders  was 
still  bound  a  yellow  cord  of  infamy,  when 
Christianity  sought  in  our  sacred  writings  the 
startling  principles  of  its  revolutions.  From 
our  Bible  came  the  Reformation.  From  it 
came  the  inspirations  of  the  poor  wretches  of 
the  Low  Countries.  Puritans  in  England  and 
America  appropriated  the  language  of  our 
judges  and  prophets.  To  the  Bible  belongs 
the  success  of  those  revolutions,  of  those 
Anglo-Saxons  who  boast  of  being  your  mas- 
ters. That  superiority  they  owe  to  a  better 
acquaintance  with  Israel.  The  Huguenots 
and  the  Bible  would  have  triumphed  in  France 


xl  Introductory  Essay. 

if  only  the  Revolution  had  burst  forth  a  cen- 
tury earlier,  and  in  that  event  it  would  have 
had  a  different  issue. 

"  Liberty,  equality,  the  fraternity  of  man 
and  of  the  people,  find  in  the  Thora  their  only 
solid  base,  the  unity  of  the  human  race. 

"  In  teaching  that  all  men  descended  from 
one  Adam  and  one  Eve,  the  Bible  proclaimed 
that  all  were  free,  equal,  and  brothers.  So  in 
the  principles  of  the  Revolution  our  hopes  are 
the  same.  For  this  unity,  this  fraternity,  our 
prophets  show  us,  have  been  ours  in  the  past, 
as  they  must  be  in  the  future.  They  were 
Israel's  ideals.  The  Revolution  with  its 
hopes  is  in  its  issue  nothing  more  than  the 
actual  testamentary  execution  of  the  will  of 
Isaiah.  Social  renovation,  equality  of  rights, 
the  uplifting  of  the  lowly,  the  suppression  of 
privileges,  of  class  barriers,  the  brotherhood  of 
races,  everything  aimed  at  or  dreamed  of  by 
the  Revolution,  was  proclaimed  some  twenty- 
five  centuries  ago  by  our  own  true  believers. 
The  reconstruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  reign 
of  the  son  of  David  described  in  glorious 
parables,  these  are  what  the  Revolution  aspires 
to.  It  is  under  this  mystic  form  that  the 


Introductory  Essay.  xli 

regeneration,  the  pacification  of  human  society, 
the  coming  of  the  age  of  reason,  the  develop- 
ment of  wealth  and  comfort,  the  miracles  of 
industry,  of  science,  the  changes  in  the  face  of 
this  earth,  are  presaged." 

For  my  part  I  am  convinced  that  future 
events  will  show  more  and  more  all  that  hu- 
manity owed  in  the  past  and  will  owe  in  the 
future  to  the  people  of  Israel,  though  there 
be  still  some  misguided  persons  who  are  un- 
grateful, and  who  would  drive  them  into  the 
ghetto. 


CHAPTER    I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES  PRIOR    TO    THE 
REVOLUTION. 

My  purpose  in  these  $Sage,s  'its  to  trace  the 
denouement  of  the  last*  act;  of;  tkejgr^a*.  dfaftia 
of  Empire,  the  origin  ot  Republican  Form  of 
Government  in  the  United  States  of  America. 
Revolutions  similar  in  many  respects  to  the 
American  Revolution  had,  before  the  latter 
occurred,  taken  place  in  the  history  of  nations. 
Prior  revolutions,  however,  either  terminated  in 
failure,  and  are  designated  in  history  as  rebel- 
lions, or  when  successful,  had  been  so  only  to 
the  extent  of  overthrowing  the  then  dominant 
ruler  and  putting  another  in  his  place,  who  in  a 
short  time  relapsed  into  the  abuses  of  his  pre- 
decessors, or  else  the  change  resulted  in  the 
formation  of  another  type  of  government  which 
contained  within  itself  the  same  or  similar  ele- 


2  The  American  Colonies 

ments  of  tyranny  and  oppression.     In  the  oft- 
quoted  couplet : 

"For  forms  of  government  let  fools  contest, 
What  e'er  is  best  administered  is  best," 

the  philosophical  poet  Pope,  who  was  born  in 
the  year  of  the  Revolution  of  1688,  expressed 
in  proverbial  phrase  the  experiences  of  the  Eng- 
lish, who  during  the  preceding  generation  had 
witnessed  the  establishment  of  no  less  than 
four  distinct  forms  of  government,  which  in 
this  short  space  of  time  rapidly  succeeded  one 
another  First,  Absolutism  under  the  guise  of 
limited  monarchy  during  the  reign  of  Charles 
I.,  then  Parliamentary  government  under  the 
Long  Parliament,  then  the  Commonwealth,  then 
Absolutism  again  under  the  last  of  the  Stuarts, 
and  finally  Constitutional  Monarchy  under  Wil- 
liam and  Mary.  All  of  these  governments  were 
administered  with  such  a  degree  of  partiality  as 
to  amount  to  persecution.  The  Anglicans,  the 
Presbyterians,  the  Catholics,  and  Puritans  were 
either  persecutors  or  persecuted,  as  they  hap- 
pened to  be  the  dominant  party  or  the  reverse. 
The  forms  of  government  that  existed  in  the 
various  American  colonies  were  a  mixture  of 
the  monarchical  and  republican  types — that  is  to 


Prior  to  the  Revolution.  3 

say,  they  were  as  nearly  republican  as  it  was 
possible  to  be  and  yet  be  circumscribed  by 
royal  charters  and  under  the  ultimate  control  of 
the  King  and  Parliament  of  Great  Britain.  On 
the  other  hand  they  were  as  nearly  monarchical 
as  it  was  possible  to  be  three  thousand  miles 
distant  from  the  seat  of  authority.  The  com- 
plaints of  the  people  in  the  colonies  were  at  no 
time  because  of  the  form  of  their  government, 
or  of  that  of  the  mother  country,  but  because  of 
the  encroachments  upon,  and  utter  disregard  of, 
those  natural  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities 
to  which  they  deemed  themselves  entitled, 
equally  with  those  residing  in  England. 

A  brief  outline  of  the  colonial  governments 
before  the  Revolution  will  give  an  idea  in  what 
respect  they  were  republican  and  in  what 
monarchical.  In  the  settlement  of  the  various 
colonies  three  distinct  forms  of  government 
were  established,  arising  from  the  diversity  of 
circumstances  under  which  the  respective  col- 
onies were  settled,  as  well  as  from  the  various 
objects  of  the  first  settlers.  These  forms  were 
known  as  the  Provincial  or  Royal,  the  Proprie- 
tary, and  the  Charter. 

At  the  Revolution  the  Royal  form  existed  in 


4  The  American  Colonies 

seven  colonies,  Virginia,  New  Hampshire,  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  and  Georgia.  Under  it  the  King  ap- 
pointed the  Governor  and  Council  for  the  prov- 
ince, the  Assembly  was  elected  by  the  people. 
The  Council  formed  the  upper  house,  the  lower 
house  being  the  Assembly.  The  Proprietary 
existed  in  three  colonies,  Maryland,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  Delaware.  It  was  in  most  respects 
similar  to  the  Royal,  with  this  difference  mainly, 
that  to  the  Proprietor,  or  person  to  whom  the 
colony  was  granted,  were  delegated  the  powers 
of  the  King.  The  Charter  governments  were 
confined  to  the  New  England  colonies.  To 
these  had  been  granted  charters  by  the  King, 
which  gave  them  in  substance  the  right  of  local 
self-government.  In  them  the  Governor,  Coun- 
cil, and  Assembly  were  originally,  as  a  rule, 
chosen  by  the  people.  Whatever  oppressions 
and  encroachments  upon  their  rights  the  colo- 
nists were  made  to  suffer,  came  through  those 
agencies  of  their  respective  forms  of  govern- 
ment which  owed  their  existence  to  the  King 
and  Parliament.  In  the  Charter  forms,  where 
those  agencies  did  not  exist,  the  King  claimed 
ultimately  the  right,  in  opposition  to  the  re- 


Prior  to  the  Revolution.  5 

peated  and  firm  protests  of  the  colonists,  to 
change,  alter,  and  even  to  abrogate  their  charters 
at  his  pleasure.  The  New  England,  or  Charter 
colonies,  believing  their  liberties  secure  under 
the  express  provisions  of  their  charters,  natu- 
rally felt  most  aggrieved  at  the  royal  encroach- 
ments, and  it  was  not  singular  that  in  these 
colonies  the  earliest  and  most  determined  spirit 
of  independence  should  have  been  developed. 

The  colonies  were  quite  contented,  so  far  as 
their  government  and  connection  with  the 
mother  country  were  concerned,  until  the  pass- 
age of  the  Stamp  Act.  They  had  no  desire  for 
a  government  totally  independent  of  England. 
In  1764  Virginia,  in  its  appeal  to  Parliament 
and  the  King,  declared  that  if  the  people  could 
enjoy  "  their  undoubted  rights,  their  connec- 
tion with  Britain,  the  seat  of  liberty,  would  be 
their  great  happiness." 

A  separation  from  Great  Britain  was  viewed 
with  alarm  and  trepidation,  and  was  not  only 
opposed  by  the  Tory  party  as  a  whole,  but  also 
by  many  Whigs,  who  feared  it  might  lead  to 
anarchy  and  its  attendant  evils.  Many,  again, 
— especially  in  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  in  the  Southern  colonies, — were  dis- 


6  The  American  Colonies 

posed  to  trust  to  the  natural  lapse  of  time  to 
bring  about  redress  of  grievances.  There  was 
another  class,  who,  while  they  favored  separa- 
tion from  the  mother  country,  were  positively 
opposed  to  Republicanism. 

The  Pennsylvania  Assembly  (Nov.  9,  17/5), 
mainly  through  the  instrumentality  of  Dickin- 
son, instructed  its  delegates  in  Congress  to 
endeavor  to  restore  harmony  between  Great 
Britain  and  her  colonies :  "  We  strictly  enjoin 
you,"  is  the  language,  "  that  you,  in  behalf  of 
this  colony,  dissent  from  and  utterly  reject  any 
propositions,  should  such  be  made,  that  may 
cause  or  lead  to  a  separation  from  our  mother 
country,  or  a  change  of  the  form  of  this  gov- 
ernment." * 

The  Assembly  of  New  Jersey,  on  the  28th  of 
November,  directed  its  delegates  "  not  to  give 
their  assent  to,  but  utterly  to  reject,  any  propo- 
sitions, if  such  should  be  made,  that  may  sepa- 
rate this  colony  from  the  mother  country,  or 
change  the  form  of  government  thereof." 
Governor  Franklin,  of  New  Jersey,  in  his 
speech  to  the  Assembly,  November  16,  1775, 

'Reed's  "  Life  of  Reed,"  I.,  155.  Frothingham's  "Rise 
of  the  Republic,"  p.  465. 


Prior  to  the  Revolution.  7 

said  :  "  As  sentiments  of  independency  are  by 
some  men  of  present  consequence  openly 
avowed,  and  essays  are  already  appearing  in 
the  public  papers  to  ridicule  the  people's  fears 
of  that  horrid  measure,  and  remove  their 
aversions  to  republican  government,  it  is  high 
time  every  man  should  know  what  he  has  to 
expect."  The  Assembly,  in  reply,  stated  that 
it  was  aware  of  such  sentiments,  and  that  it 
had  already  expressed  its  detestation  of  such 
opinions.1  The  Maryland  Assembly  (which 
assembled)  on  the  ^th  of  December,  expressed 
similar  views.  The  New  York  Provincial  Con- 
gress, on  the  I4th  of  December,  declared  that, 
in  their  opinion,  "  none  of  the  people  of  this 
colony  had  withdrawn  their  allegiance,"  and 
that  their  turbulent  state  did  not  arise  "  from 
any  desire  to  become  independent  of  the 
British  Crown  *  *  *  but  solely  from  the  in- 
roads made  on  both  by  the  oppressive  Acts  of 
the  British  Parliament,"  devised  for  enslaving 
the  American  colonies.2  The  Delaware  As- 
sembly instructed  its  delegates  to  promote 
reconciliation. 

1  Pennsylvania  Evening  Post,   Nov.  18,  1775.      Fro  thing- 
ham's  "  Rise  of  the  Republic,"  p.  466,  etc. 

a  New  York  Constitutional  Gazette,  Dec.  16,  1775. 


8  The  American  Colonies 

By  these  and  similar  expressions,  and  by  all 
the  proceedings  of  the  first  Congress  of  dele- 
gates that  met  on  the  5th  of  September,  1774, 
at  Carpenter's  Hall  in  Philadelphia,  it  distinctly 
appears  that  the  object  sought  to  be  attained 
was  a  redress  of  grievances  and  not  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  separate  and  independent  govern- 
ment. This  Congress  in  its  address  to  the 
people  of  Great  Britain  directly  denies  any 
such  purpose.  It  said  :  "  You  have  been  told 
that  we  are  impatient  of  government  and  de- 
sirous of  independence.  These  are  calumnies. 
Permit  us  to  be  free  as  yourselves,  and  we  shall 
ever  esteem  a  union  with  you  to  be  our  greatest 
glory  and  our  greatest  happiness."  And  again, 
in  the  petition  to  the  King  written  by  Dickin- 
son, containing  the  ultimate  decision  of  America, 
the  Congress  says  :  "Your  royal  authority  over 
us  and  our  connection  with  Great  Britain  we 
shall  always  support  and  maintain."  And  they 
besought  the  King  "  As  the  loving  father  of  his 
whole  people,  his  interposition  for  their  relief, 
and  a  gracious  answer  to  their  petition."  "  We 
ask,"  they  continued,  "but  for  peace,  liberty, 
and  safety.  We  wish  not  a  diminution  of  the 
prerogative,  nor  the  grant  of  any  new  right." 


Prior  to  the  Revolution.  9 

By  the  resolution  of  the  Congress  on  the  loth 
of  May,  1776,  it  was  resolved  "to  recommend  to 
the  respective  assemblies  and  conventions  of 
the  United  Colonies,  where  no  government 
sufficient  to  the  exigencies  of  their  affairs  had 
been  established,  to  adopt  such  a  government 
as  should  in  the  opinion  of  the  representatives 
of  the  people,  best  conduce  to  the  happiness 
and  safety  of  their  constituents  in  particular, 
and  of  America  in  general."  '  President  Adams, 
than  whom  no  one  more  clearly  understood  the 
temper  of  the  American  people,  nor  could  better 
read  the  signs  of  the  times,  in  his  inaugural  ad- 
dress delivered  4th  of  March,  1797,  said :  "  When 
it  was  first  perceived  in  early  times  that  no  middle 
course  for  America  remained  between  unlimited 
submission  to  a  foreign  legislature  and  to  total 
independence  of  its  claims,  men  of  reflection 
were  less  apprehensive  of  the  danger  from  the 

1  Elliot's  Debates,  vol.  I.,  54. 

"  The  Declaration  we  commemorate  expressly  admitted  and 
asserted  that  '  Governments  long  established  should  not  be 
changed  for  light  and  transient  causes.'  It  dictated  no  special 
forms  of  government  for  other  people  and  hardly  for  ourselves. 
It  had  no  denunciations  or  even  disparagements  for  monarchies 
or  for  empires,  but  eagerly  contemplated,  as  we  do  at  this  hour, 
alliance  and  friendly  relations  with  both." — Hon.  Robt.  C 
Winthrop,  Centennial  Oration,  Boston,  July  4,  1876. 


io  The  American  Colonies 

formidable  power  of  fleets  and  armies  they  must 
determine  to  resist,  than  from  those  contests 
and  dissensions  which  would  certainly  arise  con- 
cerning the  forms  of  government  to  be  insti- 
tuted over  the  whole  and  over  parts  of  this 
extensive  country." 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  no 
formative  act.  It  asserted  liberty,  but  did  not 
organize  it ;  it  was  what  its  title  implies,  a 
solemn  statement  of  the  grievances  of  the  op- 
pressed and  outraged  colonists  against  the 
tyranny  of  their  rulers,  setting  forth  plainly, 
vigorously,  and  eloquently  the  reasons  for 
their  action,  grounded  upon  "  self-evident 
truths,"  upon  those  fundamental  rights  of  man 
and  principles  of  civil  liberty  which  were  as  old 
as  the  Bible,  and  had  been  asserted  again  and 
again  under  various  forms  and  not  unlike  cir- 
cumstances by  every  uprising  of  the  people 
against  the  injustice  and  oppressions  of  the 
governing  power,  which  had  taken  place  from 
the  days  of  Moses  until  the  Declaration  was 
published  to  the  world.  As  to  the  objects  of 
the  Declaration,  let  the  author  speak  for  him- 
self :  it  was  "  not  to  find  out  new  principles  or 
new  arguments  never  before  thought  of,  not 


Prior  to  the  Revolution.  1 1 

merely  to  say  things  which  had  never  been  said 
before,  but  to  place  before  mankind  the 
common-sense  of  the  subject,  in  terms  so  plain 
and  firm  as  to  command  their  assent  and  to 
justify  ourselves  in  the  independent  stand  we 
are  compelled  to  take." '  It  was  not  a  disserta- 
tion on  government,  nor  concerning  the  forms 
of  government,  nor  did  it  propose  any  other 
change  than  the  transformation  of  the  colonies 
into  "  free  and  independent  States."  While  it 
provided  for  a  new  State,  it  did  not  contemplate 
a  new  species  of  State.  It  nowhere  even  so 
much  as  hinted  at  a  preference  for  one  species 
of  government  over  another — that  was  not  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  instrument.  "  We  hold 
these  truths  to  be  self-evident,"  is  the  language : 
"  that  all  men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are 
endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalien- 
able rights  ;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty, 
and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ;  that  to  secure 
these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among 
men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed ;  that,  whenever  any  form  of 
government  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends, 
it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to 

1  Letter  by  Jefferson  to  Heniy  Lee,  May  8,  1825. 


1 2  The  American  Colonies 

abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government, 
laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles  and 
organizing  its  powers  in  such  form  as  to  them 
shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and 
happiness." 

The  closing  scene  of  the  great  drama  of  Em- 
pire was  being  enacted,  this  solemn  protest 
of  the  American  people  against  every  form 
of  arbitrary  power.  The  manifestations  of  the 
same  forces  that  brought  about  the  Revolution 
of  1688  also  produced  the  Revolution  of  1776; 
with  this  difference,  that  the  English  revolution 
stopped  when  constitutional  limitations  had 
been  placed  around  the  prerogatives  of  the 
crown,  while  the  American  revolution  was  a 
grand  step  onward,  destined  to  transfer  the  sov- 
ereign powers  of  the  crown  to  the  people,  to 
whom  they  always  belonged,  but  with  whom 
they  so  rarely  abided.1  The  might,  the  right, 
and  the  power,  of  the  people  having  been 
wrested  from  them  in  the  dawn  of  history  and 
exalted  so  high  over  their  heads  by  the  arts 
of  designing  princes,  that  they  prostrated  them- 
selves before  this  trinity  of  their  own  creation 
and  worshipped  it  under  the  form  of  "  Divine 

1 "  The  Development  of  Constitutional  Liberty  in  the  Eng- 
lish Colonies  of  America,"  by  E.  G.  Scott  (1882),  pp.  15-19. 


Prior  to  the  Revolution.  13 

right  of  kings."  The  usurper's  title,  through 
ages  of  wrongs  and  bloody  oppressions,  by  the 
servility  of  cunning  ecclesiastics,  went  through 
an  evolution  of  fanatical  consecration,  and  there- 
by transformed  its  bearer  into  a  demi-god  under 
the  appellation  of  "  King  by  the  Grace  of  God." 
The  natural  notions  of  polity,  by  violent  re- 
straints put  upon  the  promulgating  of  any 
juster  derivation  of  the  rights  of  mankind,  were 
erased  out  of  the  minds  of  men,  and  they  were 
imbued  with  a  confused  notion  of  something 
adorable  in  monarchs  as  the  personal  represen- 
tations of  the  Divinity.  So  habituated  were 
the  people  to  the  pomp  and  the  power  of 
monarchy,  that  they  blindly  and  by  force  of 
habit  associated  with  it  their  most  exalted  ideas 
of  natural  right  and  personal  liberty.  The 
claims  of  the  British  monarch  to  these  divine 
attributes  had  not  been  abandoned,  as  we  shall 
have  occasion  to  show  in  another  chapter, 
so  far  as  the  colonies  were  concerned,  at  the 
time  even  immediately  prior  to  our  revolution. 
The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  so 
radical  a  protest  against  this  absurd  worship- 
ping of  kingly  person  and  power,  that  some 
of  the  churches  of  the  colonies  had  to  change 


14  The  American  Colonies 

their  litany  to  conform  with  its  teachings.1  In 
our  day  we  can  with  difficulty  form  a  correct 
conception  of  what  mighty  battles  of  reason 
had  to  be  fought  in  order  to  educate  the  popu- 
lar mind  up  to  the  standard  which  made  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  possible ;  and  after 
the  Declaration,  all  through  the  trying  period  of 
the  revolution,  what  a  moral  force  and  power 
of  persuasive  argument  it  required,  especially 
during  intervals  of  reverses,  to  keep  alive 
the  spirit  of  liberty ;  or  even  after  the  revolu- 
tion, until  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
what  a  power  of  lofty  patriotism  based  upon  the 
fundamental  principles  of  natural  right  was 
brought  into  living  action  to  overcome  the 
hereditary  awe  for  royalty  and  the  confused  no- 
tions as  to  "  unlimited  submission."  Such  revo- 

1  "  This  day  (2gth  July,  1776),  the  Virginia  convention  resolved 
that  the  following  sentences  in  the  morning  and  evening  church 
service  shall  be  omitted  :  '  O  Lord,  save  the  King  and  merci- 
fully hear  us  when  we  call  upon  thee.'  That  the  fifteenth,  six- 
teenth, seventeenth,  and  eighteenth  sentences  in  the  Litany  for 
the  King's  majesty  and  the  Royal  family,  etc. ,  shall  be  omitted. 
That  the  two  prayers  for  the  King's  majesty  and  the  Royal 
family  in  the  morning  and  evening  service  shall  be  omitted. 
That  the  prayers  in  the  Communion  service  which  acknowledge 
the  authority  of  the  King,  and  so  much  of  the  prayer  for  the 
church  militant  as  declares  the  same  authority,  shall  be  omitted." 
— New  York  Gazette,  July  29,  1776. 


Prior  to  the  Revolution.  1 5 

lutions  as  that  of  1776  had  taken  place  before. 
They  had  occurred  in  Greece,  in  Rome,  in 
Carthage,  in  Switzerland,  in  Holland,  and  even 
in  England.  What  distinguishes  the  Revolu- 
tion of  1776,  and  marks  it  with  such  singu- 
lar pre-eminence,  is  not  its  feats  of  bravery, 
though  they  were  by  no  means  insignificant ; 
not  its  duration,  for  it  was  short  compared 
with  many  wars  that  history  records ;  not 
the  numbers  that  were  brought  face  to  face 
in  hostile  array,  for  the  armies  were  but  insig- 
nificant compared  with  those  that  had  con- 
tended on  many  blood-dyed  battle-fields;  but 
the  results  that  followed, — the  glorious  fact  that 
the  crown  was  lifted  from  the  royal  brow  and 
placed  upon  the  head  of  the  people,  that 
civil  liberty  gained  all  the  sword  had  won. 

The  ever-important  questions  of  political  de- 
velopment are :  By  what  means  were  these  results 
attained  ?  From  what  sources  of  political  sci- 
ence did  the  great  founders  of  our  government 
draw  their  inspiration  ?  What  guiding  pre- 
cedents sanctified  by  authority  did  they  follow  ? 
What  models  applicable  by  reason  of  the  bless- 
ings of  liberty  thereunder  secured  did  they 
adopt  ?  It  is  an  established  fact  in  the  history 


1 6  The  American  Colonies 

of  nations,  that  systems  are  reformed  by  revert- 
ing to  first  principles.  The  accumulated  rub- 
bish of  ages  is  dug  away  and  the  pillars  of 
state  are  made  to  rest  on  original  and  firm 
foundations.  Says  Dr.  Price,  the  philosophical 
author  and  distinguished  contemporaneous  ob- 
server of  early  American  political  affairs :  "  The 
colonies  were  at  the  beginning  of  this  reign 
(George  III.)  in  the  habit  of  acknowledging  our 
authority,  and  of  allowing  us  as  much  power 
over  them  as  our  interest  required  ;  and  more, 
in  some  instances,  than  we  could  reasonably 
claim.  By  exertions  of  authority  which  have 
alarmed  them,  they  have  been  put  upon  ex- 
amining into  the  grounds  of  all  our  claims. 
Mankind  are  naturally  disposed  to  continue  in 
subjection  to  that  mode  of  government,  be  it 
what  it  will,  under  which  they  have  been  born 
and  educated.  Nothing  rouses  them  into  re- 
sistance but  gross  abuses  or  some  particular 
oppressions  out  of  the  road  to  which  they  have 
been  used."  ' 

When  England  began  her  encroachments  upon 
the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  colonies,  their  first 
step  was  to  petition  for  relief,  the  next  was  re- 

1  "  Observations  on  the  Nature  of  Civil  Liberty,"  etc.,  p.  34. 


Prior  to  the  Revolution.  1 7 

course  to  reason  and  argument  and  appeals  to 
the  principles  of  right  and  justice,  and  their 
natural  ultimatum  was  the  implements  and 
munitions  of  war  to  defend  their  lives,  protect 
their  liberty,  and  preserve  their  property.  While 
it  is  true  that  the  Revolution  of  1688  had  se- 
cured for  England  definite  constitutional  rights, 
the  effect  was  not  the  same  in  the  colonies.  If 
the  rights  the  colonies  then  were  permitted  to 
enjoy  can  be  termed  liberty,  it  was  only  that  un- 
settled and  restricted  kind  of  liberty  that  the 
English  people  possessed  before  the  Bill  of 
Rights.  Even  William  III.,  who  was  born  a 
citizen  of  a  republic,  a  descendant  of  the  found- 
ers of  Batavian  liberty,  who  might  naturally 
have  been  expected  to  be  a  friend  of  popular 
institutions,  was  no  herald  of  liberty  to  the 
colonies.  His  course  was  as  absolute  towards 
them  as  that  of  the  Stuarts.  He  revived  against 
them  the  navigation  acts,  and  also  the  Board  of 
Trade  and  Plantations.  He  withheld  from  them 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  he  and  his  successor 
violated,  changed,  and  abrogated  their  charters. 
What  was  acknowledged  as  the  constitutional 
rights  of  the  Englishman  was  denied  to  the 
Americans.  This  was  forcibly  set  forth  in  the 


1 8  The  American  Colonies 

address  of  the  delegates  in  Congress  to  the 
people  of  Great  Britain,  bearing  the  date  5th  of 
September,  1774,  in  the  following  language : 
"  Can  the  intervention  of  the  sea  that  divides 
us  cause  disparity  in  rights,  or  can  any  reason 
be  given  why  English  subjects  who  live  three 
thousand  miles  from  the  royal  palace  should 
enjoy  less  liberty  than  those  who  are  three 
hundred  distant  from  it?"  The  consequence 
was  that  the  people  in  America  had  to  fight 
over  again  the  same  battles  for  constitutional 
liberties  which  the  English  had  fought  before 
them,  and  in  fighting  them  they  were  brought 
face  to  face  with  natural  rights,  the  basis  of  all 
sovereignty  and  government.  George  III.,  so 
far  as  his  claims  over  the  colonies  were  con- 
cerned, relied  as  much  upon  the  kingly  preroga- 
tives, the  doctrine  of  "Divine  Right,"  as  ever 
did  James  I.  All  of  these  pretensions,  all  of 
the  questions  of  right  and  liberty,  had  to  be  re- 
argued.  To  refute  this  false  theory  of  kingly 
power  it  was  not  only  expedient  but  necessary 
to  revert  to  the  earliest  times,  to  the  most 
sacred  records,  the  Old  Testament,  for  illustra- 
tions and  for  argument,  chiefly  because  the  doc- 
trine of  "  Divine  Right,"  "  King  by  the  Grace 


Prior  to  the  Revolution.  19 

of  God,"  and  its  corollaries,  "  unlimited  sub- 
mission and  non-resistance,"  were  deduced,  or 
rather  distorted  from  the  New  Testament,* 
having  been  brought  into  the  field  of  politics 
with  the  object  of  enslaving  the  masses  through 
their  religious  creed.  This  incubus  had  to  be 
lifted  from  the  science  of  politics  before  the 
simplest  principles  of  personal  liberty  could 
logically  be  contended  for.  It  was  of  first  im- 
portance to  employ  such  argument  as  possessed 
the  sacred  stamp  of  the  Scriptures.  Any  other, 
though  as  conclusive  as  mathematical  axiom, 
would  not  avail,  especially  among  those  to  whom 
the  Bible  was  a  political  as  well  as  a  religious 
text-book  and  of  infallible  authority.  These 
authorities  and  arguments  were  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  woven  into  the  history  and  de- 
velopment of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth.5  In 

1  Romans  xiii.,  1-8.    I.  Peter  ii.,  13  and  14. 

2  "  It  is,  at  least,  an  historical  fact,  that  in  the  great  majority 
of  instances  the  early  Protestant  defenders  of  civil  liberty  de- 
rived their  political  principles  chiefly  from  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  defenders  of  despotism  from  the  New.     The  rebellions 
that  were  so  frequent  in  Jewish  history  formed  the   favorite 
topic  of  the  one — the  unreserved  submission  inculcated  by  St. 
Paul,    of  the  other.      When,   therefore,   all  the  principles  of 
right  and  wrong  were  derived  from  theology,  and  when  by  the 
rejection  of  traditions  and  ecclesiastical  authority,  Scripture  be- 
came the  sole  arbiter  of  theological  difficulties,  it  was  a  matter 


2O  The  American  Colonies. 

what  manner  and  with  what  force  and  effect 
they  were  employed  will  be  seen  in  the  suc- 
ceeding chapters. 

of  manifest  importance,  in  ascertaining  the  political  tendencies 
of  any  sect,  to  discover  which  Testament  was  most  congenial  to 
the  tone  and  complexion  of  its  theology." — Lecky's  ' '  Ration- 
alism in  Europe."  vol.  II..  168. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  POLITICAL  CA  USES  OF  THE  RE  VOL  UTION. 

THE  impelling  causes  of  the  revolution  were 
of  two  separate  and  distinct  classes,  which 
became  united  during  the  decade  immediately 
preceding  that  event.  They  were  religious  and 
political,  or  the  long  and  the  short  causes  re- 
spectively. In  this  chapter  we  shall  confine 
ourselves  to  summarizing  the  political  causes, 
even  at  the  risk  of  repeating  that  which  is 
familiar  to  the  general  reader,  so  that  they  may 
be  more  readily  contrasted  with  the  religious 
causes,  which  will  be  considered  in  the  succeed- 
ing chapters. 

In  the  American  colonies  both  the  desire  and 
purpose  of  establishing  a  separate,  independent 
or  republican  form  of  government  were  of  very 
slow  growth.1  Not  one  of  the  statesmen  who 

1  The  New  York  Gazette  of  April  8,  1776,  contains  a  paper 

entitled  "  Plan  of  the  American  Compact."     The  writer  asks  : 

"  For  what  are  we  to  encounter  the  horrors  of  war  ?  "  etc.     He 

answers  :     "  It  is  a  form  of  government  which  Baron  Montes- 

21 


22  The  Political  Causes 

assisted  in  the  framing  of  the  new  government 
had  been  originally  a  republican.  Even  Jeffer- 
son, as  late  as  August,  1775,  in  a  letter  to  John 
Randolph,  expresses  himself  as  belonging  to 
that  class  of  Americans  who  had  rather  be  de- 
pendent upon  England,  under  proper  limitations, 
than  to  be  dependent  on  any  other  nation  or  on 
no  nation  whatsoever.  The  people  who  planted 
the  colonies  were  originally  subjects  of  rival 
powers,  and  this  circumstance  was  an  additional 
incentive  for  their  successors  to  cherish  their 
allegiance  to  England,  with  the  object  of  claim- 
ing the  protection  of  the  mother  country 
against  the  threatening  aggressions  of  other 
European  nations,  as  well  as  against  the  en- 
croachments of  one  colony  upon  the  other. 
The  Congress  that  adopted  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  recognized  the  natural  tendency 
of  every  people  to  hold  fast  to  the  blessings  of 
peace  rather  than  resort  to  the  arbitrament  of  war 

quieu  and  the  best  writers  on  the  subject  have  shown  to  be 
attended  with  many  mischiefs  and  imperfections,  while  they 
pay  high  encomiums  on  the  excellency  of  the  British  Constitu- 
tion. The  Continental  Congress  has  never  lisped  the  least  de- 
sire for  independency  or  republicanism.  All  their  publications 
breathe  another  spirit."  This  plan  was  reprinted  in  pamphlet, 
entitled  "  Observations  on  the  Reconciliation  of  Great  Britain 
and  the  Colonies." 


Of  the  Revolution.  23 

so  long  as  "  ills  are  sufferable."  Its  words  are  : 
"  Prudence  indeed  will  dictate  that  govern- 
ments long  established  should  not  be  changed 
for  light  and  transient  causes  ;  and  accordingly 
all  experience  hath  shown  that  mankind  are 
more  disposed  to  suffer  while  ills  are  sufferable, 
than  to  right  themselves  by  abolishing  the 
forms  to  which  they  are  accustomed.  But 
when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations, 
pursuing  invariably  the  same  object,  evinces  a 
design  to  reduce  them  to  absolute  despotism,  it 
is  their  right,  it  is  their  duty  to  throw  off  such 
governments,  and  to  provide  new  guards  for 
their  future  security.  Such  has  been  the  pa- 
tient sufferance  of  these  colonies ;  and  such  is 
now  the  necessity  which  constrains  them  to 
alter  their  former  systems  of  government." 

In  the  struggle  between  England  and  France 
for  dominion  in  America,  not  one  of  the  colo- 
nies proved  false  to  its  allegiance.  Their  zeal 
surpassed  even  that  of  the  mother  country. 
The  war  was  not  undertaken  for  the  relief  or 
the  advantage  of  the  colonies,  but  to  gratify  the 
ambition  of  England  by  enlarging  its  colonial 
dominion,  yet  as  they  had  derived  from  its 
successful  ending  considerable  benefit,  this  fact 


24  The  Political  Causes 

was  made  the  plausible  basis  for  the  claim  that 
they  ought  to  bear  a  portion  of  the  burden  of 
expense  it  had  entailed  upon  the  nation.  The 
fact  that  the  colonies  had  of  their  own  ac- 
cord already  contributed  about  twenty-five 
thousand  lives  and  over  sixteen  millions  of 
dollars,  was  not  considered,  or  if  taken  into 
account  did  not  serve  to  restrain  the  rapacity  of 
George  III.,  his  ministers  and  Parliament. 
Whatever  serious  differences,  if  any  there  were, 
between  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country, 
prior  to  this  war,  had  been  removed  by  its  suc- 
cessful termination.  "  This  event,"  says  Pit- 
kin,  "  produced  great  joy  amongst  the  colonists, 
and  was  accompanied  with  feelings  of  gratitude 
toward  the  young  prince  (George  III.),  in  whose 
reign  it  was  accomplished.  Their  feelings 
would  have  continued  but  for  new  encroach- 
ments upon  their  rights."  1  These  encroach- 
ments were  not  slow  in  coming. 

England  no  longer  requiring  the  aid  of  the 
colonies  upon  the  continent  of  America, 
through  whose  arms  and  money  she  had  van- 
quished her  most  powerful  rival,  sought  to 
make  them  contribute  to  lighten  the  pressure 

1  Pitkin's  "  History  of  the  U.  S.,"  vol.  I.,  155. 


Of  the  Revolution.  25 

of  the  general  expense  of  the  home  govern- 
ment. In  accordance  with  this  policy,  Parlia- 
ment attempted  to  put  into  execution  an  act 
passed  many  years  before  under  George  II.,  but 
which  had  become  a  dead  letter  upon  the 
statute-books,  "  An  act  for  the  better  securing 
and  encouraging  the  trade  of  his  Majesty's  col- 
onies in  America,"  commonly  known  as  the 
"  Molasses  Act,"  whereby  a  duty  of  six  pence 
was  placed  on  molasses  and  other  articles,  being 
in  some  instances  one  half  of  their  value. 

A  determined  attempt  to  enforce  these  laws 
to  the  letter  was  the  forerunner  of  a  system  of 
direct  taxation,  the  result  of  which,  if  allowed 
to  begin,  no  one  could  foretell.  Cruisers  were 
stationed  along  the  coast,  custom-house  officers 
and  informers  were  stimulated  by  offers  of  re- 
ward, and  writs  of  assistance  were  granted 
which  gave  the  possessor  the  right  to  search 
and  seize  merchandise,  on  the  plea  that  it  was 
smuggled,  no  name  or  specific  offence  being  set 
out  in  the  writ ;  the  officer  holding  it  could 
select  any  house  he  saw  fit  and  search  it,  he 
alone  being  sole  judge  if  there  existed  probable 
cause  for  so  extraordinary  a  proceeding,  which 
was  a  gross  violation  of  that  sacred  principle  of 


26  The  Political  Causes 

the  common  law,  that  every  man's  house  is  his 
castle.  The  legality  of  these  writs  was  denied. 
When  the  cause  which  was  to  determine  this 
question  came  on  for  trial  in  the  city  of  Boston, 
in  the  council  chamber  of  the  Old  Town  House 
in  February,  1761,  James  Otis,  a  lawyer  of 
marked  ability,  resigned  his  lucrative  office  of 
advocate-general  of  the  Crown,  which  would 
have  obliged  him  to  argue  in  favor  of  the  writs, 
and  together  with  Oxenbridge  Thatcher  ap- 
peared as  counsel  for  the  petitioner  in  opposi- 
tion thereto.  Here  was  ignited  the  torch  of 
liberty  that  kindled  the  bonfires  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. "  Then  and  there,"  according  to  John 
Adams,  who  was  present  at  the  hearing,  "  was 
the  first  scene  of  the  first  act  of  opposition  to 
the  arbitrary  claims  of  Great  Britain.  Then 
and  there  the  child  Independence  was  born.  In 
fifteen  years — that  is,  in  1776,  he  grew  up  to 
manhood  and  declared  himself  free."  Otis  is 
described  upon  this  argument  as  being  "  a  flame 
of  fire."  He  stood  up  as  the  bold  and  brilliant 
advocate  of  colonial  rights  and  human  liberty. 
It  was  he  who  on  this  occasion  uttered  the 
stirring  words,  the  very  keynote  of  indepen- 
dence, "  Taxation  without  representation  is 


Of  the  Revolution.  27 

tyranny."  The  plea  of  Otis,  formulated  in 
legal  terms  and  in  eloquent  phrases  the  rights 
and  grievances  of  the  colonies.  It  asserted 
principles  and  cited  proof  to  sustain  them,  the 
truth  of  which  was  felt  before,  but  never  until 
now  so  boldly  and  forcibly  expressed.  The 
court  has  not  to  this  day  given  its  decision  ; 
that  decision  was  destined  to  be  written  in  the 
blood  of  revolution,  and  is  now  recognized  as 
of  binding  authority  by  all  constitutional  gov- 
ernments of  the  earth. 

The  need  and  greed  of  England  kept  the 
colonies  in  constant  alarm.  In  February,  1765, 
Mr.  Grenville,  the  King's  Prime-Minister,  intro- 
duced into  Parliament  the  bill  which  is  known 
as  the  Stamp  Act,  and  which  passed  with  but 
little  opposition.  The  law  was  not  to  go  into 
effect  until  about  eight  months  after  its  passage. 
'As  soon  as  the  news  of  the  passage  of  this  bill 
reached  America,  newspapers,  pamphlets,  and 
the  pulpits  issued  their  protests  against  it  in 
words  so  forcible  and  direct  that  did  not  leave 
men  to  doubt  that  the  colonies  knew  their 
rights,  and  that  unless  England  would  soon 
retract  its  policy,  they  would  have  the  courage 
to  maintain  them  at  the  hazard  of  their  lives 


28  The  Political  Causes 

and  fortunes.  The  General  Court  of  Massa. 
chusetts  assembled  in  May,  and  immedi- 
ately  resolved  that  all  the  colonies  should 
be  invited  to  send  delegates  to  a  general  con- 
gress, to  be  held  in  New  York  the  October 
following,  to  consult  together  on  the  present 
state  of  affairs,  and  to  determine  the  course 
to  pursue.  An  agreement  not  to  import  any 
goods  from  England  till  the  obnoxious  act 
should  be  repealed  was  very  generally  entered 
into.  Delegates  from  nine  colonies  assembled  in 
New  York  on  the  7th  of  October,  they  published 
a  Declaration  of  Rights,  and  addressed  a  petition 
to  the  King  and  to  the  two  houses  of  Parlia- 
ment. After  a  session  of  little  more  than  a 
fortnight  this  congress,  known  as  the  "  Stamp 
Act  Congress,"  dissolved.  The  cause  of  the 
colonies  was  taken  up  in  England  by  some 
of  her  ablest  statesmen,  amongst  whom  was 
William  Pitt,  afterwards  Earl  of  Chatham, 
energetically  seconded  by  Conway,  Colonel 
Barre",  and,  also,  by  Lord  Camden,  afterwards 
the  Lord  Chancellor,  one  of  the  highest  legal 
authorities  in  the  realm.  This  powerful  oppo- 
sition brought  about  a  change  of  ministry  in 
July,  1765.  Dr.  Franklin,  who  lived  during  this 


Of  the  Revolution.  29 

time  in  London,  as  the  agent  of  the  colony  of 
Pennsylvania,  was  summoned  before  the  House 
of  Commons,  in  a  committee  of  the  whole,  to 
be  examined  touching  the  wishes  and  feelings  of 
the  colonies.  The  examination  lasted  ten  days. 
The  Journal  of  the  Commons  records: 
"  February  13,  1766,  Benjamin  Franklin,  having 
passed  through  his  examination,  was  excepted 
from  further  attendance  "  ;  and,  February  24th, 
the  committee  reported  "  that  it  was  their  opin- 
ion that  the  House  be  moved  that  leave  be 
given  to  bring  in  a  bill  to  repeal  the  Stamp 
Act  "  ;  and  on  the  i8th  of  March  the  repeal 
was  signed.  Franklin's  testimony  served  to  in- 
form the  people  of  England  of  the  precise 
attitude  of  the  colonies,  as  well  as  the  grounds 
upon  which  they  rested  their  opposition  to  such 
legislation.  A  brief  extract  from  this  examina- 
tion will  give  the  best  insight  into  the  question 
at  issue : 

"  Q.  If  the  Stamp  Act  is  not  repealed,  what 
do  you  think  will  be  the  consequence  ? 

"  A.  A  total  loss  of  the  respect  and  affections 
the  people  of  America  bear  to  this  country, 
and  of  all  the  commerce  that  depends  on  that 
respect  and  affection. 


3O  The  Political  Causes 

"  Q.  If  the  Stamp  Act  should  be  repealed, 
would  it  induce  the  Assemblies  of  America  to 
acknowledge  the  right  of  Parliament  to  tax 
them? 

"  A.  No,  never !  *  *  *  No  power,  how  great 
soever,  can  force  men  to  change  their  opinions." 

It  had  been  argued  that  this  class  of  legislation 
was  just,  as  a  means  of  compelling  the  colonies  to 
reimburse  England  in  part  for  the  money  spent 
on  their  account  in  wars  with  the  French  and 
the  Indians.  How  this  was  met  and  refuted 
by  Franklin  this  examination  will  show. 

"  Q.  Do  you  think  it  right  that  America 
should  be  protected  by  this  country,  and  pay 
no  part  of  the  expense  ? 

"  A.  That  is  not  the  case.  The  colonies  raised, 
clothed,  and  paid,  during  the  last  year,  nearly 
twenty-five  thousand  men,  and  spent  many  mil- 
lions." He  further  testified  concerning  the 
French  and  Indian  wars:  "I  know  that  the 
last  war  is  commonly  spoken  of  here  as  entered 
into  for  the  defence,  or  for  the  sake,  of  the  peo- 
ple of  America.  I  think  it  is  quite  misunder- 
stood. It  began  about  the  limits  between 
Canada  and  Nova  Scotia;  about  territories  to 
which  the  Crown  indeed  laid  claim,  but  which 


of  the  Revolution.  31 

were  not  claimed  by  any  British  colony.  None 
of  the  lands  had  been  granted  to  any  colonist ; 
we  had  therefore  no  particular  concern,  nor 
interest  in  that  dispute."  ' 

Another  equally  high  authority,  one  of  the 
greatest  philosophers  of  his  time,  and  no  indif- 
ferent observer  of  Britain's  treatment  of  her 
colonies,  Dr.  Richard  Price,  said :  "  But  we 
have,  it  is  said,  protected  them  and  run  deeply 
in  debt  on  their  account.  Will  any  one  say 
that  all  we  have  done  for  them  has  not  been 
more  on  our  own  account,  than  on  theirs? 
The  full  answer  to  this  has  been  already  given. 
Have  they  made  no  compensation  for  the  pro- 
tection they  have  received  ?  Have  they  not 
helped  us  pay  our  taxes,  to  support  our  poor, 
and  to  bear  the  burden  of  our  debts,  by  taking 
from  us,  at  our  own  price,  all  the  commodities 
which  we  can  supply  them  ?  In  short,  were  an 
accurate  account  stated,  it  is  by  no  means  cer- 
tain which  side  would  appear  to  be  most  in- 
debted." 2 

Every  new  attempt  of  Parliament  to  enforce 
under  a  different  guise  its  unjust  claims  of  taxa- 

1  Hansard,  XVI.,  205,  etc. 

9  "  Observation  on  the  Nature  of  Civil  Liberty,"  etc.,  by 
Richard  Price  (1776),  p.  22. 


32  The  Political  Causes 

tion,  met  with  renewed  resistance  and  with 
stronger  opposition,  thereby  alienating  more 
and  more  the  affection  of  the  colonies,  and  to 
that  extent  tended  to  unite  them  in  a  closer 
union.  The  rejoicings  caused  by  the  repeal  of 
the  Stamp  Act  had  scarcely  ceased  when  an- 
other act  was  passed  by  Parliament  with  the 
same  object  in  view,  imposing  duties  on  all 
teas,  paper,  glass,  paint,  and  lead,  that  should 
be  imported  into  the  colonies.  This  act  was 
passed  under  the  guise  of  regulating  trade,  and 
was  intended  to  escape  the  objections  made 
against  the  former  act,  as  the  tax  was  external. 
The  flame  of  the  opposition  was  kindled  anew, 
non-importation  agreements  were  renewed,  ex- 
tending not  only  to  taxed  articles,  but  to  all 
British  commodities.  This  struck  straight  back 
into  the  pocket  of  the  English  people,  which, 
to  a  commercial  nation,  is  always  a  most  sensi- 
tive and  vulnerable  point  of  attack.  The 
colonists  petitioned  for  the  repeal  of  the  act, 
and  in  compliance  with  their  demand  the  duty 
was  taken  off  from  all  the  articles  mentioned 
save  only  tea  ;  this  was  but  a  paltry  tax,  being 
three  pence  per  pound,  with  a  drawback  on  the 
value,  of  a  shilling  on  the  pound,  the  amount 


of  the  Revolution.  33 

originally  paid  on  the  importation  of  the  article 
into  Great  Britain  ;  which  resulted  in  making 
the  price  of  the  tea  lower  than  if  there  were  no 
tax  or  drawback.  The  question  at  stake  was 
not  the  three  pence,  but  the  right  of  Britain  to 
levy  the  tax.  This  once  acquiesced  in,  other 
taxes  would  inevitably  follow. 

The  Massachusetts  Assembly  met  and  deter- 
mined on  stringent  measures.  It  was  resolved 
to  send  a  petition  to  the  King  wherein  were  set 
forth  the  conditions  of  their  settlement  as  a 
colony,  and  maintaining  that  there  could  not 
be  taxation  without  representation  ;  they  also 
protested  against  the  presence  of  a  standing 
army.  Governor  Bernard  and  the  Crown  offi- 
cers sent  to  the  King  counter-memorials,  setting 
forth  the  rebellious  attitude  and  independent 
spirit  of  the  colonists,  and  recommending  the 
presence  of  a  fleet  and  troops.  In  1768,  two 
regiments  of  British  troops,  which  were  subse- 
quently increased  to  four,  were  sent  to  Boston, 
which  was  then,  and  had  always  been,  the  hot- 
bed of  opposition.  Conflicts  between  the  citi- 
zens and  the  revenue  officers  in  Rhode  Island 
and  elsewhere  were  reported,  and  the  people  in 
Boston  became  every  day  more  irritated  by  the 


34  The  Political  Causes 

presence  of  soldiers  who  were  there  for  the  pur- 
pose of  dragooning  the  people  into  submission. 
The  General  Assembly,  foreseeing  that  a  con- 
flict between  the  citizens  and  soldiers  was 
likely  to  occur  at  the  slightest  provocation,  and 
desirous  of  avoiding  any  hostile  collision,  re- 
quested Governor  Hutchinson  that  the  troops 
be  withdrawn.  This  request  was  denied,  the 
Governor  shielding  himself  by  asserting  lack  of 
authority.  On  the  5th  of  March,  1770,  a  con- 
flict between  the  citizens,  or  rather  a  mob,  and 
the  soldiers  took  place,  insults  were  followed 
by  missiles  and  missiles  by  fire  and  shot,  then 
by  promiscuous  firing  from  a  number  of  sol- 
diers, whereby  three  of  the  citizens  were  killed 
and  several  wounded.  This  collision  was  ex- 
aggerated until  it  gained  the  alarming  title  of 
the  Boston  Massacre.  The  anniversary  of  this 
event,  celebrated  by  public  gatherings  and  by 
the  pulpit,  served  to  inflame  the  passions  of  the 
multitude  and  to  develop  and  keep  alive  resist- 
ance to  English  authority.  The  fact  was  lost 
sight  of  that  the  officers  and  soldiers  who  had 
fired  on  the  populace,  and  were  indicted  and 
tried  for  murder,  were  all  acquitted  except  two, 
these  being  found  guilty  of  manslaughter  and 


of  the  Revolution.  35 

slightly  punished,  and  that  they  had  been  de- 
fended by  John  Adams  and  Josiah  Quincy,  two 
young  lawyers  who  were  among  the  most  ar- 
dent of  the  popular  leaders. 

The  "  Molasses  Act  "  was  one  of  the  first 
causes  of  bitterness  between  England  and  her 
colonies  ;  the  "Sugar  Act  "  in  1764  did  not  at 
all  sweeten  these  relations  ;  and  now,  in  1773, 
the  kettle  of  discord  was  destined  to  boil  by 
reason  of  the  duty  on  tea.  In  this  year  the 
contest  was  brought  to  a  crisis  by  reason  of  ar- 
rangements which  were  entered  into  on  the  part 
of  the  ministry  with  the  East  India  Company 
for  the  consignment  of  several  cargoes  of  tea  to 
the  principal  American  ports.  The  tax  on  tea 
had  been  retained  for  the  express  purpose  of  up- 
holding and  vindicating  the  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment. This  tax  was  substantially  nullified,  partly 
by  smuggling,  and  partly  because  America  did 
not  import  much  of  this  commodity.  As  soon  as 
this  project  with  the  East  India  Company  be- 
came known  in  the  colonies,  steps  were  taken  to 
counteract  it.  At  Philadelphia  a  public  meeting 
was  held  ;  eight  resolutions  were  passed  against 
taxation  by  Parliament,  and  denounced  as  an 
enemy  to  his  country  "  whoever  shall  aid  or  abet 


36  The  Political  Causes 

in  unloading,  receiving,  or  vending  the  tea."  In 
Boston  a  town-meeting  was  held  at  which  Han- 
cock presided,  and  adopted  the  Philadelphia  reso- 
lutions. A  committee  was  appointed  to  wait 
upon  the  consignees  and  request  them  to  resign 
the  cargoes.  This  the  consignees  refused  to  do. 
On  December  i6th  the  crisis  was  reached  by  a 
band  of  about  fifty  men,  dressed  as  Mohawk 
Indians,  boarding  the  tea  vessels  and  emptying 
three  hundred  and  forty-two  chests  in  the  water. 
History  doth  not  record  who  these  fifty  men 
were.  Circumstances  would  seem  to  indicate 
they  were  not  of  that  class  that  constitute 
mobs,  but  men  who  acted  no  insignificant  part 
in  the  stirring  events  that  made  the  next  ten 
years  memorable  for  all  time  to  come.  When 
the  news  of  this  occurrence  reached  England 
the  indignant  ministry  resolved  to  mete  out 
punishment  to  the  rebellious  Bostonians.  An 
act  was  passed  to  shut  up  the  port  of  Boston, 
known  as  the  "Boston-Port  Bill";,  a  second, 
"  for  better  regulating  the  government  of  Mas- 
sachusetts Bay,"  amounting  practically  to  an 
abrogation  of  the  charter.  A  third  act,  intend- 
ed not  only  to  meet  cases  like  the  Boston 
Massacre,  but  reaching  much  further,  provided 


of  the  Revolution.  37 

for  the  trial  in  England  of  all  persons  charged 
in  the  colonies  with  murder  or  other  capital 
offences.  A  fourth  provided  for  the  quartering 
of  troops,  four  more  regiments  being  sent  to 
Boston,  so  that  the  town  was  now  strongly 
guarded.  General  Gage,  who  was  directed  to 
resume  command,  was  also  commissioned,  as 
Governor  of  Massachusetts,  to  succeed  Hutchin- 
son.  A  fifth  bill,  known  as  the  "  Quebec  Act," 
passed  at  the  same  session,  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  Canada  from  joining  with  the  other 
colonies.  It  guaranteed  to  the  Catholic  Church 
possession  of  its  vast  amount  of  property  and 
full  freedom  of  worship.  The  boundaries  of 
the  province  were  also  extended  to  the  Missis- 
sippi on  the  west  and  the  Ohio  on  the  south,  so 
as  to  include,  besides  the  present  Canada,  the 
territory  of  the  five  States  that  are  now  north- 
west of  the  Ohio.  This  last  act,  with  the  ex- 
ception perhaps  of  the  Boston  Port  Bill,  was 
most  effectual  in  alienating  the  colonies.  It 
was  construed  as  an  effort  on  the  part  of  Par- 
liament to  create  an  Established  Church,  and 
that  not  alone,  but  the  establishment  of  that 
church  which  was  most  hateful  to  and  dreaded 
by  the  great  majority  of  the  people  in  the  colo- 


38  The  Political  Causes 

nies.  The  object  Parliament  intended  to  effect 
by  the  passage  of  this  act  was  purely  one  of 
state  policy,  and  so  far  as  Canada  herself  was 
concerned,  it  was  a  wise  and  diplomatic  step. 
But  viewed  from  the  side  of  the  other  colonies, 
it  had  quite  a  different  character.  It  was  re- 
garded as  an  experiment  for  setting  up  an 
arbitrary  government  in  one  colony  which  was 
more  submissive  than  the  others,  in  order  to 
extend  by  degrees  a  like  method  of  government 
over  all  the  other  colonies.  Had  an  equally 
conciliatory  course  been  followed  by  England 
toward  her  own  original  colonies,  which  were 
bound  to  the  mother  country  by  all  the  ties  of 
loyalty,  origin,  kindred,  a  common  tongue,  and 
the  Protestant  religion,  what  happened  in  re- 
spect to  Canada  would  undoubtedly  have  been 
the  result  in  the  other  colonies.  Canada  had 
been  won  by  conquest,  having  been  ceded  to 
England  only  twelve  years  before  this  time,  by 
the  Peace  of  Paris,  in  1762.  Force  was  the  only 
bond  of  union  between  her  and  England.  A 
breach  between  England  and  her  other  Ameri- 
can colonies  now  existed,  which  the  first  four 
bills  above  referred  to  were  not  likely  to  mend, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  to  widen.  Such  being  the 


of  the  Revolution.  39 

circumstances,  Parliament  foresaw  that  Canada 
would  probably  embrace  this  opportunity  to  rid 
herself  of  the  power  that  held  her  ;  so  it  threw 
to  her  the  bait  that  she  would  be  most  likely  to 
take — the  two  matters  that  lay  closest  to  the 
hearts  of  the  people  of  that  province — the  sub- 
stitution of  the  French  civil  or  Roman  law  in 
all  civil  matters,  and  the  establishment  of  the 
Catholic  religion.  The  ancient  hostility  be- 
tween Romanism  and  Protestanism  was  thus 
utilized  and  placed  as  a  wedge  of  separation 
between  Canada  and  the  thirteen  colonies.1 

The  particulars  of  the  destruction  of  the  tea 
were  received  in  London  by  the  New  York 
mail  on  January  19,  1774.  On  the  7th  of  March 
the  King  in  messages  to  both  Houses  recom- 
mended the  matter  to  their  serious  considera- 
tion. The  Boston-Port  Bill  was  moved  by 

1  This  subject  was  very  pointedly  referred  to  by  the  minority 
in  the  House  of  Commons  when  the  Quebec  Act  came  up  for 
discussion.  It  was  claimed  that  this  measure  could  not  fail 
to  add  to  the  discontent  and  apprehension  of  the  other 
colonies,  in  that  they  could  attribute  the  extension  given  to 
arbitrary  military  government,  and  to  a  people  alien  in  origin, 
laws,  and  religion,  as  the  Canadians  were,  to  nothing  else  but 
the  design  of  utterly  extinguishing  the  liberties  of  the  other 
American  colonies,  and  bringing  them,  by  the  arms  of  those 
very  people  whom  they  had  helped  to  conquer,  into  most  abject 
vassalage. — See  Dodsley's  Annual  Register  for  1774,  p.  76. 


4O  The  Political  Causes 

Lord  North  on  the  I4th  of  March,  and  on 
the  3  ist  it  received  the  royal  assent  and  be- 
came a  law.  The  act  was  received  in  Boston  on 
the  loth  of  May ;  it  was  printed  soon  after 
on  paper  with  mourning  lines.  The  Committee 
of  Correspondence  invited  the  committees  of 
eight  neighboring  towns  to  meet  for  delibera- 
tion in  Faneuil  Hall.  Samuel  Adams  pre- 
sided and  Joseph  Warren  drew  up  its  papers. 
The  inhabitants  addressed  a  circular-letter  to 
all  the  sister  colonies.  The  effect  of  the  recep- 
tion of  these  circulars  in  the  various  colonies 
was  the  noble  purpose  to  stand  by  Massachu- 
setts. Providence  resolved  that  all  the  colonies 
were  concerned  in  the  Port  Act,  and  recom- 
mended a  congress.  In  Virginia  the  House  of 
Burgesses,  in  resolutions  penned  by  Jefferson, 
declared  that  an  attack  made  on  one  colony 
was  an  attack  on  all,  and  recommended  that 
the  Committee  of  Correspondence  communicate 
with  other  committees  on  the  expediency  of 
holding  an  annual  congress.  Expressions  in 
favor  of  a  general  congress  of  all  the  colonies 
came  pouring  in  from  all  sides.  The  people 
were  aroused.  The  Tories  favored  the  measure 
as  a  means  most  likely  to  obtain  a  redress 


of  the  Revolution.  4 1 

of  grievances,  and  the  Whigs  as  the  first  move 
toward  resisting  the  encroachments  of  Parlia- 
ment and  for  bringing  the  colonies  into  a 
firmer  union.1  The  Boston  Evening  Post  of 
June  2Oth  stated  that  a  congress  "  was  the 
general  desire  of  the  continent,  in  order  to 
agree  on  effectual  measures  for  defeating  the 
despotic  designs  of  those  who  were  endeav- 
oring to  effect  the  ruin  of  the  colonies." 

1  For  a  very  minute  summary  of  the  action  taken  in  the  vari- 
ous colonies  relating  to  a  congress  the  reader  is  referred  to 
Richard  Frothingham's  excellent  work,  ' '  The  Rise  of  the  Re- 
public of  the  U.  S.,"  p.  332,  etc. 


CHAPTER  III. 

RELIGIOUS  CAUSES  OF  THE  REVOLUTION. 

THE  religious  element  of  the  revolution  was 
imparted  to  it  by  the  very  circumstances  which 
caused  in  September,  1620,  a  company  of  Eng- 
lish Protestants,  exiles  for  religion,  to  encounter 
the  dangers  of  the  deep  and  set  sail  for  a  new 
world,  and  by  the  causes  which  impelled  Win- 
throp  and  his  band  of  Puritans  ten  years  after 
to  fly  from  the  tyranny  of  Laud,  and  settle 
along  the  northern  shores  of  Massachusetts 
Bay.  "  It  is  certain  that  civil  dominion  was 
but  the  secondary  motive,  religious  the  primary, 
with  our  ancestors  in  coming  hither  and  settling 
in  this  land."  1 

A  distinction  is  to  be  noted  between  the  two 
colonies  above  mentioned,  in  respect  to  their 
attitude  toward  the  Established  Church.  The 
first  of  these  colonies  is  known  as  the  Pilgrims, 
the  second  as  the  Puritans.  The  Pilgrims  were 

1  President  Ezra  Stiles. 
42 


of  the  Revolution.  43 

organized  as  a  church  before  they  left  Holland ; 
they  were  independents  in  religion  and  were 
separated  entirely  from  the  Church  of  England. 
Their  residence  in  Holland  had  made  them 
acquainted  with  various  forms  of  religion,  and 
had  the  effect  of  emancipating  them  to  a  degree 
from  bigotry  and  intolerance;  wherefore  they 
manifested  in  their  subsequent  history  a  much 
more  tolerant  and  liberal  spirit  than  their 
brethren  of  the  Bay.  They  maintained  that 
ecclesiastical  censures  were  wholly  spiritual,  and 
not  to  be  visited  with  temporal  penalties.  The 
Puritans  of  Massachusetts  Bay  Colony  were 
not  separated  from  the  Church  of  England, 
"  though  they  scrupled  conformity  to  several 
of  its  ceremonies."  The  reign  of  James  I.  was 
a  period  of  transition  from  arbitrary  govern- 
ment to  an  incipient  assertion  of  popular  rights, 
and  his  long  and  continuous  quarrels  with  Par- 
liament led  to  an  investigation  of  political 
principles,  and  to  the  questioning  of  the  claims 
of  arbitrary  power.  The  Puritans  were  at  the 
bottom  of  this  conflict,  and  during  its  con- 
tinuance they  grew  in  numbers,  in  hope,  and  in 
courage.  In  1625  James  died,  and  the  acces- 
sion of  a  new  sovereign  was  an  opportune 


44  Religious  Causes 

occasion  for  the  friends  of  popular  rights  to 
organize.  What  was  at  first  a  question  in  the 
Church  concerning  ceremonies  was  now  trans- 
formed into  a  principle  in  politics,  between  the 
King  on  the  one  side  and  the  Parliament  on  the 
other.  For  four  years  more  under  Charles  the 
conflict  went  on  in  this  form,  when  a  temporary 
victory  was  gained  for  royalty  by  the  King  dis- 
solving the  third  Parliament  in  a  passion,  in 
utter  contempt  of  every  claim  and  principle  of 
popular  right.  When  the  Parliament  of  1629 
was  dissolved  all  hopes  of  relief  through  legis- 
lative means  had  to  be  abandoned.  The  powers 
of  Church  and  State  were  now  allied  in  an  ag- 
gressive policy  against  puritanism  and  freedom. 
Laud,  the  most  despotic  of  bishops,  was  by 
Charles  promoted  step  by  step  in  the  episcopal 
office  till,  in  1633,  he  was  consecrated  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  the  primate  of  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  the  representative  man  of  the 
Hierarchy,  and  chief  of  the  High  Commission. 
"  As  this  dismal  state  of  things  approached, 
and  especially  when  it  was  reached,  patriotic 
and  religious  Englishmen  asked  themselves, 
and  one  another  what  was  the  course  of  honor 
and  of  safety.  While  some  among  them  still 


of  the  Revolution.  45 

looked  for  relief  to  a  renewal  and  a  happy 
issue  of  the  struggle  that  had  been  going  on  in 
Parliament,  and  resigned  themselves  to  await 
and  help  on  the  progress  of  a  political  and  re- 
ligious reformation  in  the  kingdom ;  others, 
less  confident,  or  less  patient,  pondered  on 
exile  as  the  best  resource,  and  turned  their  view 
to  a  new  home  on  the  Western  Continent."1 
The  class  of  emigrants  that  were  now  coming 
to  America  were  of  a  grade  socially  and  intel- 
lectually superior  to  the  Pilgrims.  There  were 
among  them  clergymen  and  physicians,  univer- 
sity graduates,  and  English  country  gentlemen 
of  no  inconsiderable  fortunes.  The  causes  and 
motives  that  impelled  them  to  leave  homes  of 
ease  and  comfort  in  England,  and  the  pleasant 
society  of  friends,  to  risk  the  dangers  of  the 
deep  and  the  still  greater  dangers  and  uncer- 
tainties that  awaited  them  on  land,  were  not 
such  as  would  be  likely  to  leave  only  a  fading 
impression  on  them  or  their  immediate  descend- 
ants. The  colonists  were  not  adventurers  who 
had  all  to  gain  and  nothing  to  lose.  They  were 
not  men  who  were  driven  by  a  restless  spirit  of 
enterprise,  or  by  thirst  for  gold,  but  purely  by 

1  Palfrey's  "  History  of  New  England,"  vol.  I.,  93. 


46  Religious  Causes 

a  desire  for  the  enjoyment  of  spiritual  liberty, 
without  which  life  was  to  them  unendurable, 
and  for  the  love  of  which  they  were  ready  to 
hazard  all.  The  motives  which  actuated  these 
early  colonists  were  in  one  sense  narrow  and 
selfish,  but  of  that  kind  of  selfishness  which  is 
so  near  akin  to  public  virtue,  that  it  is  fre- 
quently confounded  with  it.  Hence  arises  the 
abuse  and  reproach  which  many  writers  heap 
upon  our  Puritan  forefathers  for  the  bigotry 
and  intolerance  which  characterize  their  early 
history,  forgetting,  or  losing  sight  of  the  fact 
that  they  came  here  purely  and  simply  to  seek 
freedom  of  worship  for  themselves,  and  that 
they  founded  their  colonies  so  that  they  might 
have  a  dominion  of  their  own  to  exercise  it  in. 
The  golden  rule  found  no  application  outside 
their  own  contracted  sphere.  The  great  God 
of  nations  never  intended  this  vast  continent  of 
ours  for  a  faction,  nor  for  a  sect ;  it  was  to  be 
the  asylum  for  the  oppressed  of  every  land. 
The  problem  of  liberty  was  to  be  solved  in  this 
new  world,  and  all  the  old  world  was  destined 
to  contribute  to  its  solution.  Every  new  act 
of  oppression  on  the  isles  and  continent  of 
Europe  drove  additional  exiles  to  our  shores, 


of  the  Revolution.  47 

and  every  new  colony  represented  a  different 
shade  of  religious  opinion. 

The  earliest  champion  of  religious  freedom, 
or  "  soul  liberty,"  as  he  designated  that  most 
precious  jewel  of  all  liberties,  was  Roger  Wil- 
liams. He  came  to  America  on  the  5th  of 
February,  1631,  to  escape  the  Laudian  perse- 
cution. He  was  on  terms  of  intimacy  with 
Oliver  Cromwell,  and  a  friend  of  Milton  and 
Henry  Vane,  the  younger.  To  him  rightly 
belongs  the  immortal  fame  of  having  been 
the  first  person  in  modern  times  to  assert 
and  maintain  in  its  fullest  plenitude  the  ab- 
solute right  of  every  man  to  "  a  full  liberty  in 
religious  concernments,"  and  to  found  a  state 
wherein  this  doctrine  was  the  keystone  of  its 
organic  laws.  Before  the  great  Locke  advo- 
cated the  principles  of  toleration,  before  Milton 
wrote  his  Eiconoclastes,  before  the  patriotic 
hero  and  martyr  Sidney  taught  the  people 
the  true  origin  of  their  rights  in  his  "  Dis- 
courses Concerning  Government,"  Roger  Wil- 
liams, the  first  pure  type  of  an  American 
freeman,  proclaimed  the  laws  of  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty,  that  "  the  people  were  the 
origin  of  all  free  power  in  government,"  that 


48  Religious  Causes 

God  has  given  to  men  no  power  over  con- 
science, nor  can  men  grant  this  power  to  each 
other ;  that  the  regulation  of  the  conscience  is 
not  one  of  the  purposes  for  which  men  combine 
in  civil  society.  For  uttering  such  heresies 
this  great  founder  of  our  liberties  was  ban- 
ished from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Puritans  in 
America,  and  driven  into  the  wilderness  to 
endure  the  severity  of  our  northern  winter  and 
the  bitter  pangs  of  hunger.  For  means  of 
subsistence  he  depended  on  the  Indians,  whose 
trustworthy  and  trusted  friend  he  became  and 
ever  remained.  He  endeavored  at  a  subse- 
quent period  to  procure  a  repeal  of  the  sen- 
tence of  his  banishment,  but  the  rigorous  spirit 
of  intolerance  prevailed,  and  the  founder  of 
Rhode  Island  continued  till  his  death  an  out- 
law from  Massachusetts.1 

Some  time  about  June,  1636,  Williams,  with 
his  five  companions,  left  their  frail  canoe  and 
came  on  shore  and  founded  the  town,  which, 
in  grateful  remembrance  of  "  God's  merciful 
providence  to  him  in  his  distress,"  he  gave  the 


1  Straus's  *'  Roger  Williams,  the  Pioneer  of  Religious  Lib- 
erty," Century  Co.,  1894.  John  Foord's  "Religious  Liberty 
in  the  United  States,"  N.  Y.  Times,  May,  1876. 


of  the  Revolution.  49 

name  of  Providence.  "  I  desired,"  said  he,  "  it 
might  be  for  shelter  for  persons  distressed  for 
conscience."  The  infant  community  at  Provi- 
dence at  once  set  about  to  frame  laws  for 
government  in  strict  accord  with  the  spirit 
of  the  settlement.  All  were  required  to  sub- 
scribe to  the  following  covenant  or  constitution : 
"  We,  whose  names  are  hereunder  written, 
being  desirous  of  to  inhabit  in  the  town  of 
Providence,  do  promise  to  submit  ourselves  in 
active  and  passive  obedience  to  all  such  orders 
or  agreements  as  shall  be  made  for  public  good 
of  the  body,  in  an  orderly  way,  by  the  major 
consent  of  the  present  inhabitants,  masters  of 
families  incorporated  together  into  a  township, 
and  such  others  as  they  shall  admit  into  the 
same,  only  in  civil  things."  This  simple  instru- 
ment is  the  earliest  constitution  of  government 
whereof  we  have  any  record,  which  not  only 
tolerated  all  religions,  but  recognized  as  a  right, 
absolute  liberty  of  conscience.  The  colony  at 
Providence  was  rapidly  increased  by  the  arrival 
of  persons  from  other  colonies,  and  from 
Europe,  attracted  thither  by  the  liberal  pro- 
visions of  its  laws  and  freedom  in  matters  of 
conscience  which  were  there  guaranteed.  In 


50  Religious  Causes 

1637-8,  Portsmouth  and  Newport  were  settled, 
practically  as  one  colony.  The  settlers  were, 
like  Williams  and  his  companions,  exiles  or 
emigrants  from  Massachusetts.  "  In  imitation 
of  the  form  of  government  which  existed  for  a 
time  among  the  Jews,  the  inhabitants  chose 
Mr.  Coddington  to  be  their  magistrate,  with 
the  title  of  Judge ;  and  a  few  months  afterward 
they  elected  three  elders  to  assist  him."1  In 
1663  a  charter  was  obtained  from  Charles  II., 
being  the  second  charter  of  the  colony,  which 
continues  to  the  present  day  to  be  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  State.  It  contains  this  most 
important  provision  embodying  the  principles 
upon  which  the  colony  was  founded.  "  No  per- 
son within  the  said  colony  at  any  time  hereafter 
shall  be  any  wise  molested,  punished,  disquieted, 
or  called  in  question  for  any  differences  in 
opinion,  in  matters  of  religion,  who  do  not 
actually  disturb  the  civil  peace  of  our  said  colony ; 
but  that  all  and  every  person  and  persons  may 
from  time  to  time,  and  at  all  times  hereafter, 
freely  and  fully,  have  and  enjoy  his  own  and 

l"  Memoir  of  Roger  Williams,"  by  Prof.   Knowles,   p. 
145. 


of  the  Revolution.  5 1 

their  judgments  and  consciences,  in  matters  of 
religious  concernments."  Some  writers  have 
claimed  for  Lord  Baltimore,  proprietor  of 
Maryland,  priority  in  establishing  religious 
liberty  on  this  continent.  Undoubted  author- 
ity, however,  proves  that  not  only  in  point  of 
time  did  the  first  laws  of  Rhode  Island  in 
respect  to  religious  liberty  precede  those  of 
Maryland,  but  that  they  also  were  more  com- 
prehensive in  their  liberality.  The  first  law 
of  Maryland  respecting  religious  liberty  was 
enacted  in  1649,  while  in  Rhode  Island  in  1647 
the  first  General  Assembly  adopted  a  code 
of  laws,  relating  exclusively  to  civil  concerns, 
and  concluding  with  these  words :  "  All  men 
may  walk  as  their  consciences  persuade  them, 
every  one  in  the  name  of  his  God."  ' 

Without  detracting  from  the  glory  of  Lord 
Baltimore,  for  the  liberty  he  established  in 

1  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  question  see  Knowles'  "  Roger 
Williams,"  p.  371.  In  the  light  of  the  most  recent  investiga- 
tions the  subject  has  been  exhaustively  discussed  by  Sidney 
S.  Rider  in  his  "  Rhode  Island  Historical  Tracts,"  2d  Series, 
No.  5  (1896).  Bancroft  in  the  earlier  editions  of  his  history 
of  the  United  States  gave  priority  to  Maryland,  but  this 
statement  was  changed  in  1882  and  in  his  last  revised 
edition. 


52  Religious  Causes 

Maryland  was  fully  a  century  in  advance  of  his 
times,  it  evidently  did  not  rise  to  the  standard 
of  Rhode  Island,  in  that  it  extended  only  to 
Christians. 

Having  briefly  traced  the  dawn  of  religious 
liberty  in  the  smallest  of  the  original  colonies, 
we  will  now  take  a  view  of  the  religious  struggle 
and  its  intolerant  attitude  in  the  two  principal 
colonies,  Virginia  and  Massachusetts.  The 
colony  of  Virginia  was  the  first  permanent 
settlement  of  Englishmen  in  North  America, 
dating  from  the  founding  of  Jamestown  in  1607. 
The  charter  of  this  colony  enjoined  the  estab- 
lishment of  religion  according  to  the  doctrine 
and  usages  of  the  Church  of  England.  Devotion 
to  the  Church  was  a  test  of  loyalty  to  the  King, 
its  "  head  and  defender."  In  each  parish  all 
the  inhabitants  were  taxed  alike  for  the  support 
of  the  churches  of  the  established  order.  Dur- 
ing the  civil  war  in  England,  the  colony  of 
Virginia,  which  now  had  a  Legislature  of  its  own, 
espoused  the  cause  of  the  King  against  Crom- 
well and  the  Parliament,  and  hence  adhesion  to 
the  Established  Church  was  made  a  test  of 
loyalty  to  the  colonial  government,  and  non- 


of  the  Revolution.  53 

conformity  was  identified  with  republicanism 
and  disloyalty.  The  party  in  power  had  re- 
course to  religious  persecutions,  which,  as  often 
happens,  had  more  to  do  with  political  policy 
than  the  question  of  faith.  In  the  establish- 
ment of  the  "  Society  for  Propagating  the 
Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,"  incorporated  by  act 
of  Parliament,  these  worldly  considerations 
were  not  without  influence.  The  conversion  of 
the  Indians  was  its  nominal  object,  but  its  real 
purpose  was  to  strengthen  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land in  America,  and  to  render  the  colonies 
duly  subservient  to  England.1 

1  Hildreth's  "  History  of  the  U.  S.,"  vol.  II.,  215,  230,  232. 

"  The  most  politic  of  all  the  schemes  that  were  at  this  time 
(1749)  proposed  in  the  British  cabinet,"  says  Grahame  in  his 
"  Colonial  History  of  the  U.  S."  (vol.  II.,  194),  "was  a  project 
of  introducing  an  ecclesiastical  establishment,  derived  from  the 
model  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  particularly  the  order  of 
bishops,  into  North  America.  The  pretext  assigned  for  this 
innovation  was,  that  many  non-juring  clergymen  of  the  Episco- 
pal persuasion,  attached  to.  the  cause  of  the  Pretender,  had 
recently  emigrated  from  Britain  to  America,  and  that  it  was 
desirable  to  create  a  board  of  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  for  the 
purpose  of  controlling  their  proceedings  and  counteracting 
their  influence  ;  but  doubtless  it  was  intended,  in  part  at 
least,  to  answer  the  ends  of  strengthening  royal  prerogative  in 
America — of  giving  to  the  State,  through  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, an  accession  of  influence  over  the  colonists, — and  of  im- 
parting to  their  institutions  a  greater  degree  of  aristocratical 


54  Religious  Causes 

Several  acts  of  the  Virginia  Assembly,  of 
1659,  1662,  and  1693  had  made  it  penal  in 
parents  to  refuse  to  have  their  children  bap- 
tized. "  If  no  execution  took  place  here,"  says 
Mr.  Jefferson,  "  as  did  in  New  England,  it  was 
not  owing  to  the  moderation  of  the  Church,  or 
the  spirit  of  the  Legislature,  as  may  be  inferred 
from  the  law  itself ;  but  to  historical  circum- 

character  and  tendency.  The  views  of  the  statesmen  by  whom 
this  design  was  entertained  were  inspired  by  the  suggestions  of 
Butler,  Bishop  of  Durham,  and  were  confirmed  and  seconded 
by  Seeker,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  society  instituted 
for  the  propagation  of  the  gospel.  This  society  had  received 
very  erroneous  impressions  of  the  religious  character  of  the 
colonists  in  general,  from  some  worthless  and  incapable  mis- 
sionaries, which  it  sent  to  America  ;  and  Seeker,  who  partook 
of  these  impressions,  had  promulgated  them  from  the  pulpit  in  a 
strain  of  vehement  and  presumptuous  invective.  Such  de- 
meanor by  no  means  tended  to  conciliate  the  favor  of  the 
Americans  to  the  proposed  ecclesiastical  establishment.  From 
the  intolerance  and  bitterness  of  spirit  disclosed  by  the  chief 
promoters  of  the  scheme,  it  was  natural  to  forebode  a  total  ab- 
sence of  moderation  in  the  conduct  of  it." 

President  John  Adams,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Morse  in  1815,  re- 
ferring to  this  subject,  says  :  "  Where  is  the  man  to  be  found 
at  this  day,  when  we  see  Methodistical  bishops,  bishops  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  bishops  and  archbishops  and  Jesuits 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  with  indifference,  who  will  believe  that 
the  apprehension  of  Episcopacy  contributed,  fifty  years  ago,  as 
much  as  any  other  cause,  to  arouse  the  attention,  not  only  of  the 
inquiring  mind,  but  of  the  common  people,  to  close  thinking  on 
the  constitutional  authority  of  Parliament  over  the  colonies? 
This,  nevertheless,  was  a  fact  as  certain  as  any  in  the  history  of 
North  America." 


of  the  Revolution.  55 

stances  which  have  not  been  handed  down  to 
us."  '  For  a  century  or  more  the  Anglicans 
retained  absolute  control,  and  so  long  as  such 
was  the  case  the  colony  was  bound  hand  and 
foot  in  political  subjection  ;  the  ideas  of  liberty 
came  creeping  in  with  the  Dissenters.  It  has 
often  been  observed  that  when  men  have 
restricted  and  arbitrary  laws  of  church  govern- 
ment, they  naturally  incline  to  political  systems 
in  which  all  powers  of  self-government  are  cen- 
tralized, and  from  which  the  popular  element  is 
excluded.  The  one  is  a  schooling  and  a  prece- 
dent for  the  other.  In  testimony  of  this  we 
have  a  high  authority  in  the  Virginia  Anglican 
divine  and  historian,  Boucher :  "  The  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church  of  England  is  approved, 
confirmed,  and  adopted  by  our  laws,  and  inter- 
woven with  them.  No  other  form  of  church 
government  than  that  of  the  Church  of  England 
would  be  compatible  with  the  form  of  our  civil 
government.  No  other  colony  has  retained  so 
large  a  portion  of  the  monarchical  part  of  the 
British  constitution  as  Virginia ;  and  between 
that  attachment  to  monarchy  and  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  of  England,  there  is  a 

1  Notes  on  Virginia,  Works,  vol.  VIII.,  p.  398. 


56  Religious  Causes 

strong  connection."  And  again  :  "A  levelling 
republican  spirit  in  the  Church  naturally  leads 
to  republicanism  in  the  State  ;  neither  of  which 
would  heretofore  have  been  endured  in  this 
ancient  dominion."  1  This  same  author  also 
bears  testimony  to  the  approach  of  Virginia  and 
New  England  to  the  same  result :  "  And  when 
it  is  recollected  that  till  now  the  opposition  to 
an  American  episcopate  has  been  confined 
chiefly  to  the  demagogues  and  independents  of 
the  New  England  provinces,  but  that  it  is  now 
espoused  with  much  warmth  by  the  people  of 
Virginia,  it  requires  no  great  depth  of  political 
sagacity  to  see  what  the  motives  and  views  of 
the  former  have  been,  or  what  will  be  the  con- 
sequences of  the  defection  of  the  latter." 

The  rumor,  that  the  colonies  were  to  be 
erected  into  an  episcopate  of  the  Established 
Church,  more  than  once  alarmed  the  people  of 
New  England,  and,  according  to  John  Adams  : 
"  The  objection  was  not  merely  to  the  office  of 
a  bishop,  though  even  that  was  dreaded,  but  to 
the  authority  of  Parliament,  on  which  it  must 
be  founded.  *  *  *  If  Parliament  can  erect 

1  Boucher's  view,  pp.  103-104,  from  a  sermon  "On  the 
American  Episcopate,"  preached  1771,  in  Caroline  County,  Va. 


of  the  Revolution.  57 

dioceses  and  appoint  bishops,  they  may  intro- 
duce the  whole  hierarchy,  establish  tithes,  forbid 
marriages  and  funerals,  establish  religions,  forbid 
dissenters." 

In  the  winter  of  1768,  the  Assembly  of  Mas- 
sachusetts appointed  a  committee  to  take  into 
consideration  the  condition  of  public  affairs. 
The  number  and  names  of  this  committee  will 
show  how  much  importance  was  attached  to 
their  action.  It  consisted  of  Mr.  Gushing  (the 
Speaker),  Colonel  James  Otis,  Mr.  Adams, 
Major  Hawley,  Mr.  Hancock,  and  four  others. 
This  Committee,  in  its  letter  to  Mr.  Deberdt, 
the  agent  of  the  province  in  London,  after  re- 
ferring to  the  establishment  of  the  Catholic 
religion  in  Canada,  and  enumerating  the 
impending  evils,  come  to  this  grievance  : 
"  The  establishment  of  a  Protestant  episcopate 
in  America  is  also  very  zealously  contended 
for ;  and  it  is  very  alarming  to  a  people  whose 
fathers,  from  the  hardships  which  they  suffered 
under  such  an  establishment,  were  obliged  to 
fly  their  native  country  into  a  wilderness,  in 
order  peaceably  to  enjoy  their  privileges,  civil 
and  religious.  Their  being  threatened  with 
loss  of  both  at  once,  must  throw  them  into  a 


58  Religious  Causes 

disagreeable  situation.  We  hope  in  God  such 
an  establishment  will  never  take  place  in 
America,  and  we  desire  you  would  strenuously 
oppose  it.  The  revenue  raised  in  America,  for 
aught  we  can  tell,  may  be  as  constitutionally 
applied  towards  the  support  of  prelacy,  as  of 
soldiers  and  pensioners."  1  How  the  people  of 
Boston  were  alarmed  by  such  a  threatened 
contingency,  is  shown  by  a  caricature  in  the 
Political  Register  oi  1769,  entitled:  "  An  Attempt 
to  Land  a  Bishop  in  America."  A  ship  is  at 
the  wharf,  the  lord  bishop  is  in  full  canonicals, 
his  carriage,  crosier,  and  mitre  on  deck,  the 
people  appear  with  a  banner  inscribed  with 
"  Liberty  and  Freedom  of  Conscience,"  and 
are  shouting,  "  No  lords,  spiritual  or  tem- 
poral, in  New  England."  "  Shall  they  be 
obliged  to  maintain  bishops  that  cannot  main- 
tain themselves  ?  "  They  pelt  the  bishop  with 
Locke,  Sidney  on  Government,  Barclay's  Apol- 
ogy, Calvin's  Works,  and  the  unhappy  prelate 
has  mounted  the  shrouds,  ejaculating,  "  Lord, 
now  Lord,  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in 
peace."  2  The  Society  for  the  Propagation  of 

1  Tudor's  "  Life  of  Otis,"  p.  307.  . 

a  See  the  picture  in  Thornton's  Pulpit  of  the  American  Revol- 
ution. 


of  the  Revolution.  59 

the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  was  active  in  this 
scheme  for  establishing  the  Church  through  an 
American  episcopate.  In  October,  1776,  Dr. 
Charles  Inglis,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  New 
York,  wrote  to  the  society :  "  The  present  re- 
bellion is  certainly  one  of  the  most  causeless, 
unprovoked,  and  unnatural  that  ever  disgraced 
any  country.  Although  civil  liberty  was  the 
ostensible  object,  yet  it  is  now  past  all  doubt 
that  an  abolition  of  the  Church  of  England  was 
one  of  the  principal  springs  of  the  dissenting 
leaders'  conduct."  He  further  asserts  that  "  All 
the  society's  missionaries  in  New  Jersey,  New 
York,  Connecticut,  have  proven  themselves 
faithful,  loyal  subjects,"  shutting  up  their 
churches  rather  than  cease  praying  for  the 
King,  and  he  urges  the  establishment  of  the 
episcopate  as  an  encouragement  to  such  fidel- 
ity.1 William  Tudor,  in  his  "  Life  of  James 
Otis,"  wherein  he  dwells  quite  fully  on  the  con- 
temporary events  from  1760  to  1775,  says  :  "A 
jealousy  of  the  designs  of  the  English  hier- 
archy was  kept  constantly  alive  by  the  indica- 
tions given  from  time  to  time  of  anxiety  to 
extend  its  authority  over  this  country,  and  by 

1  "  Doc.  Hist,  of  New  York,"  III.,  637. 


60  Religious  Causes 

the  indiscreet  conduct  of  some  of  its  mission- 
aries. Fear,  hatred,  and  a  long  course  of 
hereditary  prejudice  against  this  church,  com- 
bined almost  all  the  dissenting  clergy  of  New 
England  against  it,  and  naturally  led  them  to 
sympathize  with  those  who  opposed  the  con- 
stitutional acts  of  political  power." 
V  To  return  to  Virginia.  In  1755  a  short  crop 
of  tobacco  having  suddenly  enhanced  the  price, 
the  Assembly  passed  a  temporary  act  authoriz- 
ing the  payment  of  debts,  instead  of  in  tobacco, 
as  heretofore,  in  money  at  twopence  for  the 
pound  of  tobacco.  Three  years  after,  this 
tender  act  was  renewed.  The  salaries  of  the 
parish  ministers,  some  sixty-five  in  number, 
were  payable  in  tobacco.  As  they  were  con- 
siderable losers  by  this  act,  they  sent  an  agent 
to  England,  and  by  the  aid  of  Sherlock,  Bishop 
of  London,  procured  an  order  in  council  pro- 
nouncing the  law  void.  Suits  were  immedi- 
ately brought  to  recover  the  difference  between 
twopence  per  pound  and  the  value  of  the 
tobacco.  Patrick  Henry  was  one  of  those 
engaged  to  plead  against  "  the  parsons."  The 
contract  was  that  Maury,  "  the  parson,"  should 
be  paid  sixteen  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco. 


of  the  Revolution.  61 

The  act  of  1758  fixed  the  value  at  twopence 
per  pound  ;  it  was  worth  thrice  that  sum  in 
1759.  The  question  of  law  at  issue  was  simply 
this:  the  act  of  1758  having  been  duly  and 
regularly  enacted,  could  it  be  annulled  by  the 
King  in  Council  ?  As  interpreted  by  Henry,  it 
was  a  question  between  the  prerogative  and 
the  people  of  Virginia.  He  defined  the  uses  of 
the  Established  Church  and  to  what  extent 
obedience  is  due  the  King.  "  Except  you  are 
disposed,"  are  his  words,  "  yourselves  to  rivet 
the  chains  of  bondage  on  your  own  necks,  do 
not  let  slip  the  opportunity  now  offered  of 
making  such  an  example  of  the  reverend 
plaintiff,  as  shall  hereafter  be  a  warning  to 
himself  and  his  brothers  not  to  have  the 
temerity  to  dispute  the  validity  of  laws  authen- 
ticated by  the  only  sanction  which  can  give 
force  to  laws  for  the  government  of  this  colony, 
the  authority  of  its  own  legal  representatives, 
with  its  council  and  governor."  The  jury 
promptly  rendered  a  verdict  of  a  penny  dam- 
ages, and  it  had  the  effect,  as  prophesied  by 
the  Bishop  of  London,  who  said  :  "  The  rights 
of  the  clergy  and  the  authority  of  the  King 
must  stand  or  fall  together."  Thus,  singularly 


62  Religious  Causes 

enough,  it  united  ecclesiastical  and  constitu- 
tional questions  as  causes  of  the  revolution  in 
Virginia,  as  they  had  been  united  in  Massachu- 
setts from  the  beginning  of  her  settlement.1 
And  the  same  sparks  of  liberty  that  were  kin- 
dled by  Otis  in  Boston  in  1761,  in  his  argument 
against  writs  of  assistance,  were  ignited  anew 
in  Virginia  by  Patrick  Henry  in  the  "  parson's 
case." 

When  the  revolution  came,  we  find  the  Bap- 
tists and  Presbyterians  were  almost  to  a  man 
in  its  favor,  influenced  by  dual  considerations, 
civil  and  ecclesiastical,  by  the  hope  of  seeing  in 
the  success  of  the  revolution  the  overthrow  of 
an  establishment  which  they  regarded  with  fear 
and  repugnance.  Under  such  conditions,  it 
was  naturally  to  be  expected  that  assaults  on 
the  Established  Church  would  be  made,  and 
they  were  made,  not  without  success.  At  its 
first  meeting  after  the  Declaration,  the  Presby- 
tery of  Hanover,  in  Virginia,  addressed  the 
Virginia  House  of  Assembly  a  memorial  recom- 
mending, in  a  spirit  of  fairness  and  equal  justice 
to  all,  a  separation  of  Church  and  State,  leaving 

1  See  Hon.  Mellen  Chamberlain's  address  on  John  Adams, 
before  the  Webster  Historical  Society,  January  18,  1884. 
(Published  by  the  Society,  Boston.)  Brooks  Adams's  "  Eman- 
cipation of  Massachusetts"  (1887),  pp.  319,  341. 


of  the  Revolution.  63 

the  support  of  the  gospel  to  the  voluntary 
efforts  of  its  votaries.  "  In  this  enlightened 
age,"  runs  the  memorial,  "  and  in  a  land  where 
all  of  every  denomination  are  united  in  the 
most  strenuous  efforts  to  be  free,  we  hope  and 
expect  that  our  representatives  will  cheerfully 
concur  in  removing  every  species  of  religious  as 
well  as  civil  bondage.  Certain  it  is,  that  every 
argument  for  civil  liberty  gains  additional 
strength  when  applied  to  liberty  in  the  con- 
cerns of  religion."  From  this  memorial  it 
would  appear,  that  in  the  opinion  of  these 
memorialists,  a  majority  of  the  population  of 
Virginia  were  Episcopalians.  Mr.  Jefferson, 
on  the  other  hand,  states  that  two  thirds  of 
the  people  had  become  dissenters  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  revolution.  "  I  am  inclined 
to  think,"  says  Robert  Baird,1  "that  the  greater 
part  professed  or  favored  Episcopacy,  but  that 
a  decided  majority  were  opposed  to  its  civil 
establishment."  Mr.  Jefferson  was  the  great 
champion  of  religious  liberty,  and  he  advocated 
the  cause  with  a  devotion  and  fervor  of  purpose 
that  carried  before  it  every  opposition ;  but  it 
was  not  until  the  winter  of  1785-6,  ten  years 

1  Baird's  "  Religion  in  America,"  p.  220. 


64  Religious  Causes 

after  the  beginning  of  the  revolution,  that 
an  act  for  establishing  religious  freedom  was 
adopted  in  Virginia,  and  the  last  vestige  of  a 
united  Church  and  State  was  obliterated.1 

The  plan  of  an  Established  Church,  according 
to  Rev.  Robert  Baird,  was  at  one  time  adopted 
in  all  the  American  States  except  Pennsylvania 
and  Rhode  Island.  The  nature  of  the  estab- 
lishment, however,  varied  in  the  different  States. 
In  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New  York,  Vir- 
ginia, and  South  Carolina  it  was  almost  as  strict 
as  in  England.  The  early  efforts  to  promote 
religious  liberty  in  Virginia  doubtless  had  its 
direct  influence  in  the  other  colonies.  In  No- 
vember, 1776,  measures  to  the  same  effect  were 
adopted  by  the  legislature  of  Maryland,  and  the 
union  of  Church  and  State  was  in  a  like  manner 
dissolved  by  the  Legislatures  in  New  York,  South 
Carolina,  and  all  the  other  colonies  in  which  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  was  predominant. 
Of  all  these  States,  Connecticut  and  Massachu- 
setts were  the  last  to  yield  to  the  advancing 
spirit  of  religious  liberty.  It  was  not  till  1816 
that  the  connection  was  dissolved  in  the  former, 

1  See   Act   for  Establishing  Religious  Freedom,  Jefferson's 
Works,  vol.  VIII.,  454. 


of  the  Revolution.  65 

not  till  1833  that  the  finishing  blow  was 
given  to  it  in  the  latter  State.     The  religious 
complexion  of  no  two  of  the  American  colonies 
was  precisely  alike.     The  various  sects  at  the 
time  of  the  revolution  were  grouped  as  follows: 
The  Puritans  in  Massachusetts,  the  Baptists  in 
Rhode  Island,  the  Congregationalists  in  Con- 
necticut, the  Dutch  and  Swedish  Protestants  in 
New  Jersey,  the  Church  of  England  in  New 
York,  the  Quakers  in   Pennsylvania,  the  Bap- 
tists, Methodists,  and  Presbyterians  in  North 
Carolina,  the  Catholics  in  Maryland,  the  Cava- 
liers in  Virginia,  the  Huguenots  and  Episco- 
palians in  South  Carolina,  and  the  Methodists 
in  Georgia.     Owing  to  these  fortunate  diversi- 
ties, to  the  consciousness  of  dangers  from  ecclesi- 
astical  ambition,  the   intolerance   of   sects   as 
exemplified    among   themselves   as  well  as  in 
foreign  lands,  it  was  wisely  foreseen  that  the 
only  basis  upon  which  it  was  possible  to  form  a 
Federal  union  was  to  exclude  from  the  National 
Government  all  power  over  religion.     "  It  was 
impossible  that  there  should  not  arise  perpetual 
strife  and  perpetual  jealousy,"  says  Judge  Story, 
"  if  the  National  Government  were  left  free  to 
create  a  religious  establishment.    But  this  alone 


66  Religious  Causes 

would  have  been  an  imperfect  security,  if  it  had 
not  been  followed  up  by  a  declaration  of  the 
right  of  the  free  exercise  of  religion,  and  a  pro- 
hibition of  all  religious  tests."  ' 
-  It  is  fair  to  presume  that  no  one  sect  a  hun- 
dred years  ago,  if  it  had  possessed  the  exclusive 
power,  would  have  established  by  law,  absolute 
religious  liberty  for  all  sects.  When,  therefore, 
we  trace  the  origen  of  religious  liberty  as 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  it  is  erroneous 
to  ascribe  it  to  the  acts  or  liberal  tendencies  of 
any  one  or  more  particular  sects.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  credit  belongs  as  much  to  the  in- 
tolerant as  to  the  tolerant  sects.  The  constitu- 
tional provisions  on  this  subject  clearly  bear 

1  Story  on  the  Constitution,  §  1879.  Mr.  Jefferson,  when 
President,  wrote  the  following  letter,  in  1802,  to  the  Danbury 
Baptist  Association :  "  Believing  with  you,  that  religion  is  a 
matter  which  lies  solely  between  man  and  his  God,  that  he 
owes  account  to  none  for  his  faith  or  his  worship,  that  the 
legislative  powers  of  government  reach  action  only,  and  not 
opinions,  I  contemplate  with  sovereign  reverence  that  act  of 
the  whole  American  people  which  declared  that  their  Legis- 
lature should  '  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of 
religion  or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof, '  thus  building 
a  wall  of  separation  between  Church  and  State.  Adhering  to 
this  expression  of  the  supreme  will  of  the  nation  in  behalf  of 
the  rights  of  conscience,  I  shall  see  with  sincere  satisfaction  the 
progress  of  those  sentiments  which  tend  to  restore  to  man  all 
his  natural  rights,  convinced  that  he  has  no  natural  right  in 
opposition  to  his  social  duties." 


of  the  Revolution.  67 

the  marks  not  of  mutual  concessions,  but  of 
reciprocal  distrust.  That  there  was  good 
ground  for  such  distrust,  the  provisions  of  the 
early  constitutions  of  several  of  the  States  on 
the  subject  of  religion  bear  ample  testimony. 
And  even  to  this  day  the  Constitution  or  laws 
of  several  of  the  States  require  a  belief  in  the 
being  of  a  God,  and  in  a  future  state  of  rewards 
and  punishments  as  a  qualification  for  holding 
civil  office  and  for  testifying  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice. But  these  laws  are  fast  falling  into  disuse. 
The  laws  of  the  States  of  North  Carolina  and 
Maryland  have  within  recent  years  been  modi- 
fied in  this  respect.  At  rare  intervals  even  at 
the  present  day  we  see  cropping  up  the  old 
spirit  of  intolerance  in  efforts  to  desecularize 
the  public  schools,  or  in  a  bill  offered  in  the 
Legislature  to  convert  a  sectarian  holiday  into 
a  secular  dies  non.  These  attempts  are  general- 
ly predicated  upon  the  false  basis  that  Christian- 
ity is  in  some  way  a  part  of  our  laws,  or  on  the 
Protestant  majority  claim.  As  to  the  first 
claim,  Jefferson  clearly  disproved  that,  by  a 
careful  examination  of  the  ancient  authorities 
upon  which  the  claim  was  supposed  to  rest. 
"  We  may  safely  affirm,"  says  he,  "  that  Chris- 


68  Religious  Causes 

tianity  neither  is,  nor  ever  was,  a  part  of  the 
common  law."  The  treaty  adopted  between 
the  United  States  and  Tripoli  on  Nov.  4,  1796, 
and  signed  by  Washington,  recites  in  the 
eleventh  article,  as  a  reason  why  harmony  with 
that  Mohammedan  country  could  be  preserved, 
that  "  the  government  of  the  United  States  is 
not  in  any  sense  founded  on  the  Christian 
religion."  3 

A  word  only  as  to  the  second  claim,  that  of 
the  Protestant  majority,  which  says  the  majority 
religion  in  this  country  being  the  Protestant, 
and  the  majority  of  Protestants  being  in  favor 
of  reading  the  Protestant  Bible  in  the  public 
schools  and  the  like,  therefore  the  minority 
ought  to  submit.  The  answer  to  this  argument 
is,  that  while  in  political  matters  the  majority 
rules,  in  matters  of  religion  and  of  conscience, 
our  Federal  and  State  constitutions  delegate  no 
such  authority,  and  the  majority  possesses  no 

1  Letter  to  Thomas  Cooper  (1814),  Works,  vol.  VI.,  311. 

9  For  other  authorities  see  Vidal  vs.  Girard  Executors,  2 
How.,  198  ;  Andrew  vs.  Bible  Society,  4  Sandford,  182  ; 
Cooley  on  Constitutional  Limitations,  p.  472  ;  Bloom  vs. 
Richards'  Ohio  State  Rep.,  387,  also  Minor  vs.  Board  of  Edu- 
cation in  Cincinnati  (1870).  See  Arguments  in  same  case  by 
J.  B.  Stallo,  George  Hoadley,  and  Stanley  Matthews,  counsel 
for  defendants  (published  by  Rob't  Clarke  &  Co.,  Cincin- 
nati, O.). 


of  the  Revolution.  69 

such  power  as  to  discriminate  against  a  minority 
however  small.  To  such  as  would  ask  why 
religion  was  left  out  of  the  Constitution  ?  we 
answer  in  the  words  of  Washington,  "  Because 
it  belonged  to  the  churches,  and  not  to  the 
State."  ' 

1  Letter  in  Massachusetts  Sentinel,  Dec.  5,  1789,  to  the 
Presbyterians  of  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts,  who 
complained  of  "  the  omission  of  God  "  in  the  Constitution. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  REPUBLIC. 

THE  social,  religious,  and  political  upheavals 
that  kept  the  governments  of  England  and 
the  Continent  in  constant  change  and  commo- 
tion, had  as  yet  little  effect  in  the  colonies. 
The  people  here  were  busy  with  their  own 
affairs,  and  England  having  not  as  yet  laid  her 
rapacious  hands  upon  them,  they  prospered  all 
the  more  by  reason  of  this  neglect.  Beliefs 
that  had  lost  much  of  their  vigor  in  Europe  re- 
tained all  their  ancient  force  in  the  colonies. 
The  inestimable  privilege  of  worshipping  God 
in  accordance  with  their  own  conscience  was 
denied  to  the  first  settlers  of  New  England  in 
the  mother  country,  and  they  came  to  the  wilds 
of  America  to  enjoy  that  boon.  The  Bible  was 
to  them  not  only  their  guide  in  religion,  but 
their  text-book  in  politics.  They  studied  the 
Old  Testament  and  applied  its  teaching  with  a 
thoroughness  and  literal  devotion  that  no 
70 


The  Genesis  of  the  Republic.          71 

people,  excepting  only  the  Jews,  and  perhaps 
the  Scotch,  had  ever  exemplified,  for  they 
seemed  to  recognize  a  striking  similarity  be- 
tween their  own  hardships,  history,  and  condi- 
tion and  those  of  the  children  of  Israel  under 
Moses  and  Joshua.  They  quoted  its  texts  with 
a  literal  application.  Their  condition  they 
characterized  as  "  Egyptian  Bondage,"  James 
I.  they  styled  "  Pharaoh,"  the  ocean  whose 
dangers  and  hardships  their  ancestors  were 
driven  to  encounter  they  spoke  of  as  the  "  Red 
Sea."  They  likened  their  own  numbers  to 
that  of  the  children  of  Israel,  "  three  million 
souls,"  America  in  whose  wilds  they  had  come 
was  their  "  Wilderness,"  and  in  after  days 
Washington  and  Adams  were  frequently  re- 
ferred to  as  their  Moses  and  Joshua.  Their 
first  conception  of  the  form  of  an  American 
union  was  a  Theocracy,  the  same  form  of  gov- 
ernment in  all  its  essential  characteristics,  and 
expressly  modelled  thereafter,  as  the  children  of 
Israel  set  up  over  the  twelve  tribes  under  their 
great  lawgiver  Moses.  They  continued  this 
Theocracy  for  a  period  of  forty-one  years,  from 
1643  to  1684,  and  under  it  they  organized  the 
New  England  Confederacy.  "  This  confederacy 


72         The  Genesis  of  the  Republic. 

of  the  four  New  England  Colonies,"  says  Pit- 
kin,  "served  as  the  basis  of  the  great  con- 
federacy afterwards  between  the  thirteen  States 
of  America."  An  examination  of  the  two 
systems  discloses  a  similarity  not  only  in  name, 
but  in  principles.  The  Puritans,  especially  the 
New  England  Puritans,  evinced  a  greater  pref- 
erence for  the  Old  Testament  than  perhaps 
they  themselves  were  aware  of.  The  persecu- 
tions they  had  suffered  in  the  mother  country 
instead  of  subduing  or  disbanding  them,  had 
transformed  them  from  what  at  first  was  a  sect 
into  a  faction,  united  together  by  the  strongest 
ties  of  union  with  spirits  rendered  more 
determined  by  the  severity  of  the  hardships 
they  had  endured.  The  wilderness  they  had 
conquered  by  their  patient  toil  was  now  blos- 
soming as  a  garden  interspersed  within  grow- 
ing villages  and  populous  towns.  Their  first 
and  only  concern  was  to  preserve  this  new 
Canaan  for  themselves,  and  to  establish  such 
laws  and  regulations  for  their  government  as 
might  secure  this  end  beyond  peradventure. 
The  Mosaic  laws  were  framed  under  divine 
sanction  to  accomplish  a  similar  end.  To  these 

1  Pitkin's  "  History  of  the  U.  S."  vol.  I.,  p.  52. 


The  Genesis  of  the  Republic.          73 

laws  they  turned  as  a  guide,  not  taking  into 
account  that  more  than  thirty  centuries  had 
rolled  by,  and  that  the  social  regulations  of 
those  times  were  no  better  fitted  for  the  then 
times  than  the  vestments  of  that  clime  would 
suffice  as  a  proper  protection  against  the  New 
England  winter.  They  did  not  seem  to  under- 
stand that  however  severe  the  Mosaic  code 
was,  it  was  mild  in  comparison  with  the  laws 
that  preceded  it,  and  that  the  social  relations  of 
mankind  had  undergone  a  change  during  the 
many  centuries  that  had  rolled  by.  They  even 
baptized  their  children  no  longer  by  the  names 
of  Christian  saints  but  by  those  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets  and  patriarchs.  In  a  word,  they 
adopted  not  the  spirit  but  the  letter  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  here  was  the  radical  error 
of  their  social  regulations.1 

The  question  suggests  itself :  Why  could 
not  the  social  laws  and  religious  regulations 
of  the  Hebrews  be  adopted  by  the  people  of 
New  England  with  the  same  propriety,  justice, 
and  applicability  as  their  form  of  government  ? 
The  answer  is  plain.  The  former  were  framed 
upon  the  central  idea  of  exclusiveness.  The 
children  of  Israel  were,  as  they  believed,  God's 

1  See  notes,  page  145. 


74         The  Genesis  of  the  Republic. 

chosen  people.  Social  and  religious  regulations 
were  made  with  this  chief  end  in  view,  that 
they  might  not  by  contact  with  surrounding 
nations  lapse  into  idolatry.  On  the  other  hand, 
their  form  of  government  was  constructed 
upon  laws  of  universal  humanity,  upon  the 
broad  principles  that  all  men  are  equal,  that 
God  alone  is  King;  which  were  as  true  when 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  adopted 
as  in  the  times  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  and  as 
true  in  New  England  as  they  were  in  Canaan. 

Early  in  the  history  of  the  American  people, 
Cotton  Mather,  who  was  an  extreme  Old  Tes- 
tamentarian,  said :  "  New  England  being  a 
country  whose  interests  are  remarkably  en- 
wrapped in  ecclesiastical  circumstances,  minis- 
ters ought  to  concern  themselves  in  politics." 
Verily  they  followed  his  advice.  They  mus- 
tered not  only  in  the  ranks  of  the  Continental 
army,  with  their  firelocks  in  hand,  fighting  the 
battles  of  the  revolution,  but  on  Sunday  their 
eloquent  voices  were  heard  from  the  pulpit  and 
in  camp  denouncing  not  only  as  false  in  prin- 
ciple, but  as  against  the  true  spirit  and  meaning 
of  the  Scriptures,  the  slavish  doctrines  of  "  un- 
limited submission  and  non-resistance,"  which, 


The  Genesis  of  the  Republic.          75 

they  explained,  had  been  invented  by  crown 
sycophants  and  court  chaplains  to  flatter  the 
ears  of  tyrannical  rulers.  They  pictured  in 
glowing  words  the  rise  and  fall  of  the  Hebrew 
Commonwealth,  and  read  to  their  hearers  again 
and  again  the  warnings  and  admonitions  of 
Samuel,  and  the  references  made  by  the 
prophets  to  the  wrongs  and  injustice  of  kings, 
and  the  consequential  sufferings  of  the  people 
because  of  their  rejecting  God's  established 
rule,  the  government  of  the  people  as  it  ex- 
isted under  Moses,  Joshua,  and  the  Judges. 
"  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Samuel,  hearken 
unto  the  voice  of  the  people  in  all  that  they 
say  unto  thee  ;  for  they  have  not  rejected  thee, 
but  they  have  rejected  me,  that  I  should  not  rule 
over  them  "  (Samuel  viii.,  7).  "  Now  there- 
fore hearken  unto  their  voice  :  howbeit  yet  pro- 
test solemnly  unto  them,  and  show  them  the 
manner  of  the  king  that  shall  reign  over 
them "  (Id.,  9.)  These  and  similar  passages 
were  taken  as  texts  for  the  politico-theologi- 
cal sermons  that  were  heard  Sunday  after 
Sunday  throughout  New  England.  Jonathan 
Mayhew,  in  the  preface  to  his  famous  discourse 
"  Concerning  Unlimited  Submission  and  Non- 


76          The  Genesis  of  the  Republic. 

Resistance  to  Higher  Powers,"  etc.,  published 
at  the  request  of  the  hearers,  delivered  on  the 
3Oth  of  January,  1750,  the  anniversary  of  the 
death  of  King  Charles  I.,  says  by  way  of  intro- 
duction :  "  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  but  few  will 
think  the  subject  *  *  *  an  improper  one  to 
be  discoursed  on  in  the  pulpit,  under  a  notion 
that  this  is  preaching  politics,  instead  of  Christ. 
*  #  •*  Why  then  should  not  these  parts  of  the 
Scripture  which  relate  to  civil  government  be 
examined  and  explained  from  the  desk  as  well 
as  others  ?  " 

By  a  remarkable  and  potent  coincidence  the 
very  texts  and  arguments  drawn  from  the 
Scriptures,  that  were  adduced  by  the  divines 
to  resist  the  unjust  exactions  and  illegal 
encroachments  of  the  king,  and  which  stripped 
the  royal  sceptre  of  its  divine  character,  held  up 
before  the  American  people  the  Hebrew  Com- 
monwealth as  a  model  of  government ; — so 
closely  are  the  rights  of  the  people  and  their 
form  of  government  identified  in  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.  The  same  Scriptural  rec- 
ords which  weaned  the  Americans  from  their 
monarchical  affiliations,  which  placed  the  divine 
mark  upon  popular  government,  and  which 


The  Genesis  of  the  Republic.          77 

designated  that  form  as  best  calculated  to 
secure  the  inestimable  privileges  of  civil  lib- 
erty, also  supplied  the  model  for  its  creation. 

We  must  not  forget  that  in  our  colonial 
period  the  great  majority  of  people  had  neither 
the  leisure  nor  the  facilities  for  acquiring 
knowledge  which  they  have  in  our  day.  The 
ability  to  read  was  a  much  rarer  accomplish- 
ment than  now;  newspapers  were  few,  and 
those  few  were  weekly  publications,  while 
books  were  relatively  expensive.  The  pulpit 
occupied  a  more  general  sphere,  and  exerted 
much  greater  influence.  Ministers  preached 
politics  as  well  as  religion.  The  pulpit  was  the 
most  direct  way  of  reaching  the  people. 

As  early  as  1633  the  governor  and  assistants 
in  the  New  England  colonies  began  to  appoint 
the  most  eloquent  and  distinguished  ministers 
to  preach  on  the  day  of  the  general  election. 
The  sermon  was  styled  the  election  sermon. 
On  these  occasions  political  subjects  were  not 
only  permissible,  but  specially  appropriate. 
The  sermon  was  printed,  every  representative 
receiving  several  copies,  and  it  was  distributed 
throughout  the  colonies.  By  the  charter  of 
William  and  Mary,  in  1691,  the  last  Wednesday 


78         The  Genesis  of  the  Republic 

in  May  was  set  apart  as  "  Election  Day,"  and 
it  remained  so  until  the  revolution.  The  ser- 
mons preached  on  this  day  are  remarkable  for 
their  learning  and  political  wisdom.  One  can- 
not fail  on  reading  them  to  recognize  the  fact 
that  they  contributed  much  of  the  moral  force 
that  brought  about  our  independence.  "The 
publication  of  these  sermons  in  pamphlet  form 
was  a  part  of  the  regular  proceedings  of  the 
Assembly.  Scattered  over  the  land,  clothed 
with  the  double  sanction  of  their  distinguished 
authorship  and  the  endorsement  of  the  Legis- 
lature, they  became  the  text-books  of  human 
rights,  and  in  every  parish  they  were  regarded 
as  the  political  pamphlets  of  the  day." '  In 
1774,  when  our  whole  country  was  in  misery, 
in  the  travail  which  preceded  the  birth  of  the 
nation,  the  first  provincial  Congress  of  Massa- 
chusetts acknowledged  with  profound  gratitude 
the  public  obligations  to  the  ministers  as  friends 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty,and  invoked  their  aid 
to  assist  "  in  avoiding  the  dreadful  slavery  with 
which  we  are  now  threatened,  and  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  America." 

1  "  Chaplains  and  Clergy  of  the  Revolution,"  J.  T.  Headley. 
See  J.  Wingate  Thornton's  excellent  compilation,  "  The  Pulpit 
of  the  American  Revolution,"  Boston,  1876. 


The  Genesis  of  the  Republic.          79 

The  framers  of  the  Republic  of  the  United 
States  did  not  construct  this  government  after 
the  model  of  any  of  the  then  existing  republics, 
or  after  that  of  the  great  republics  of  classical 
or  mediaeval  history.  They  brought  to  their 
aid  the  experiences  of  all  the  past ;  the  entire 
science  of  government  was  their  guide.  In  the 
words  of  Franklin,  who,  as  an  authority  on 
this  subject,  is  second  to  none  :  "  We  have  gone 
back  to  ancient  history  for  models  of  govern- 
ment, and  examined  the  different  forms  of  those 
republics  which,  having  been  originally  formed 
with  the  seeds  of  their  own  dissolution,  now 
no  longer  exist ;  and  we  have  viewed  modern 
states  all  round  Europe,  but  find  none  of  their 
constitutions  suitable  to  our  own  circumstan- 
ces." On  the  other  hand,  the  departments 
constituting  the  framework  of  our  government 
— the  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial, — owe 
their  origin  directly  to  similar  departments  in 
the  government  of  England,  and  to  the  general 
form  of  construction  of  the  then  existing 
colonial  governments.  In  the  spirit  and  es- 
sence of  our  Constitution  the  influence  of  the 
Hebrew  Commonwealth  was  paramount,  in 

1  Bigelow's  "  Franklin,"  vol.  III.,  p.  388. 


80         The  Genesis  of  the  Republic. 

that  it  was  not  only  the  highest  authority  for 
the  principle  :  "  Rebellion  to  Tyrants  is  obe- 
dience to  God,"  but  also  because  it  was  in 
itself  a  divine  precedent  for  a  pure  democracy 
as  distinguished  from  monarchy,  aristocracy, 
or  any  other  form  of  government.  By  that 
means  and  to  that  extent  it  had  a  decisive  in- 
fluence in  guiding  the  American  people  in  the 
selection  of  their  form  of  government. 

After  the  termination  of  the  war  between 
France  and  England  for  dominion  in  America^ 
when  the  question  of  separation  from  England 
was  first  forced  upon  the  minds  of  the  colonists, 
republics  were  not  looked  upon  with  favor.  It 
was  not  a  democratic  age.  The  inscription 
upon  the  little  desk  upon  which  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  was  penned,  tells  the 
whole  story  in  these  characteristic  words: 
"  Politics  as  well  as  religion  has  its  supersti- 
tions." And  those  superstitions  were  not  on 
the  side  of  popular  government.  Superstition 
always  lurks  about  the  dark  and  mysterious,  it 
is  founded  in  ignorance,  fostered  by  habit  and 
promoted  by  regal  authority.  The  main  bul- 
warks of  the  kingly  power  were  these  very  su- 
perstitions which  surrounded  the  kingly  person 


The  Genesis  of  the  Republic.          8 1 

and   prerogatives,    and    no    means   were   more 
effective  in  freeing  the  minds  of   the  masses 
from    them   than   the   history    of    the   libera- 
tion of  the  children  of  Israel  and  the  develop- 
ment of  their  democratic  government.    Prudent 
and    conservative     men     are    naturally    more 
inclined  to  adopt  institutions  with  which  they 
are  familiar  and  under  which  they  have  lived, 
than  to  work  experiments  in  untried  projects  or 
Utopian   theories.     The   colonists   were   accus- 
tomed to  a  monarchical  form   of  government. 
This  form  was  much  preferred  by  the  people  at 
large  to  that  of  a  democracy.     All  the  so-called 
democracies  of  history  had  been  subverted  or 
perverted,  so  that  the  privileged  few  had  arro- 
gated to  themselves  even  greater  powers  than 
a  king  ever  dared  practically  to  assume.     Such 
had  been  the  result  under  the  Grecian,  Roman 
and  Venetian  republics,  and  in  the  republics  of 
Holland  and  England  in  a  modified  form.     In 
all  of  these  so-called  republics,  the  government 
theoretically  was  founded  on  the  supremacy  of 
the  people,  but  the  power  was  exercised  in  a 
manner  to  defeat  its  purpose.     They  were,  in 
the  language  of  Gibbon,  in  his  description  of 
the  Roman  Commonwealth,  "Absolute  monar- 


82         The  Genesis  of  the  Republic. 

chies  disguised  in  the  form  of  a  Common- 
wealth." It  was  argued  with  great  historical 
force,  that  the  people  of  England  had  been  in 
a  state  of  turmoil  and  unrest  during  the  entire 
period  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  that  their 
liberties  were  more  secure  under  the  Restoration 
than  they  had  been  under  the  Commonwealth. 

Montesquieu  derided  "this  impotent  effort 
of  the  English  to  establish  a  democracy,"  and 
pointed  out  the  true  causes  of  its  failure.  "  The 
government  was  incessantly  changed,  and  the 
astonished  people  sought  for  democracy,  and 
found  it  nowhere.  After  much  violence  and 
many  shocks  and  blows  they  were  fain  to  fall 
back  on  the  same  government  they  had  over- 
thrown." 

The  English  Commonwealth  was  most  fa- 
miliar to  the  people  of  the  colonies,  its  rise  and 
subversion  were  chapters  in  their  own  history, 
and  every  American,  as  well  as  every  English- 
man, recognized  the  fact  that  this  common- 
wealth as  an  experiment  in  popular  govern- 
ment, was  a  complete  failure,  for  otherwise  the 
Restoration  would  never  have  taken  place. 
Aside  from  that,  the  people  in  England  during 
the  Commonwealth  feared  the  sovereignty  of 


The  Genesis  of  the  Republic.          83 

Parliament  more  than  they  ever  did  that  of  the 
King.  "  The  Commons  were  a  sort  of  collective, 
self-constituted,  perpetual  dictatorship  like 
Rome  under  the  Decemviri.  England  was  en- 
slaved by  its  legislators ;  they  were  irresponsi- 
ble, absolute,  and  apparently  not  to  be  dis- 
solved but  at  their  own  pleasure."1  While  it 
is  true  that  the  colonies  during  the  period  of 
the  Commonwealth  were  comparatively  happy 
in  the  enjoyment  of  the  privilege  of  being  let 
alone,  yet  the  circumstances  that  brought 
about  its  overthrow  had  the  natural  effect  of 
discouraging  a  like  attempt,  or  any  attempt  to 
establish  a  republic.  Its  failure  was  cited  and 
referred  to  as  a  practical  argument  and  illustra- 
tion in  favor  of  the  kingly  rule.  The  troubled 
condition  of  the  then  existing  republics  was 
not  such  as  to  invite  imitation  of  their  form  of 
government.  The  Republic  of  Holland  was  in 
a  very  precarious  state,  so  much  so  that  Mr. 
Adams  says  of  it  in  his  "  Defence  of  the  Consti- 
tutions of  Government "  :  "  Considering  the  crit- 
ical situation  of  it,  prudence  dictates  to  pass  it 
over." 2  The  same  observations  apply  even 

1  Bancroft's  "  History  of  the  U.  S.,"  vol.  I.,  p.  391. 

3  Works  of  John  Adams,  vol. -IV.,  p.  356.      "  The  govern- 


84         The  Genesis  of  the  Republic. 

with  greater  force  to  the  Republic  of  Venice, 
which  at  that  time  showed  signs  of  dissolution, 
and  soon  thereafter,  in  1797,  after  having  en- 
dured longer  than  the  republics  of  Rome  or 
Sparta,  or  any  other  in  history,  ceased  to  exist. 
In  the  following  year,  1799,  Genoa  met  with  a 
similar  fate,  its  government  having  been  finally 
overthrown  by  the  allied  armies  of  France. 
The  Swiss  Confederation,  although  it  had  ex- 
isted for  centuries,  did  not  invite  imitation,  in 
that  it  was  aristocratic  in  its  tendencies,  and 
more  especially  because  the  different  cantons 
were  continually  at  variance  one  with  another 
to  such  an  extent  that  political  authors  have 
justly  ascribed  its  long  preservation  not  to  any 
inherent  cohesion  or  stability  of  its  own,  but  to 
the  menacing  attitude  of  surrounding  nations, 
which  presented  to  the  various  cantons  a  com- 
mon danger,  and  thereby  had  the  effect  to  con- 
tinue and  cement  a  Confederation  which  other- 

ment  of  Holland  grew  out  of  the  immediate  necessities  of  the 
heroic  struggle  with  the  power  of  Spain.  It  never  could  be 
presented  as  a  model  for  imitation  by  any  people  ;  it  was  a 
singular  combination  of  corporation  and  aristocratical  influence 
with  a  federal  principle.  The  author  had  good  reason  for 
avoiding  at  the  moment  of  publication  any  analysis  of  a  system 
which  was  then  crumbling,  and  which  has  since  been  swept 
completely  away." — p.  357.  Note,  by  Charles  Francis  Adams. 


The  Genesis  of  the  Republic.          85 

wise  would  have  broken  asunder.  Even  the 
Republic  of  Carthage  which  resembled  the 
Hebrew  Commonwealth  more  than  any  other 
of  the  republics  of  history,  and  which,  accord- 
ing to  John  Adams,  also  resembled  those  of 
the  States  of  America  more  closely  than  any  of 
the  ancient,  and  perhaps  more  than  any  of  the 
modern  republics,  was  not  a  pure  democracy, 
in  that  birth  and  wealth  were  necessary  qualifi- 
cations for  the  offices  of  Senator,  Pentarch,  and 
Suffete.  These  two  qualifications,  however, 
were  not  all-sufficient ;  merit  was  indispensable, 
and  for  that  reason  it  rises  above  most  of  the 
other  ancient  republics,  so  that  even  Aristotle 
bestowed  the  highest  praise  upon  its  form  of 
government.  "  It  is  a  general  opinion  that  the 
Carthaginians  live  under  a  polity  which  is  ex- 
cellent and  in  many  respects  superior  to  all 
others."1 

The  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  unlike  the 
other  republics,  both  ancient  and  modern, 
was  an  original  government.  It  was  not  con- 
structed from  the  remnants  of  a  shattered 
monarchy,  nor  did  it  belong  to  that  class  of 
governments  which  were  "  originally  formed 

1  Politics  of  Aristotle,  book  II.,  ch.  2. 


86         The  Genesis  of  the  Republic. 

from  the  seeds  of  their  own  dissolution."  The 
governing  power  was  exercised  by  the  people, 
and  not  arrogated  by  the  few,  or  retained  by 
aristocratic  families  who  might  thereby  have 
the  means  of  constituting  themselves  an  heredi- 
tary senate.  The  children  of  Israel,  when  they 
escaped  from  the  thraldom  of  Pharaoh,  like  the 
people  of  America  when  they  severed  their 
allegiance  from  the  king,  were  peculiarly  fortu- 
nate in  having  no  titled  classes  with  exclusive 
privileges  to  contend  against,  no  institutions 
among  them  which  had  outlived  their  useful- 
ness, no  old  ruins  to  rebuild.  They  were 
peculiarly  fortunate  in  having  the  power  of 
organizing  for  themselves  such  form  of  govern- 
ment as  they  in  their  most  deliberate  judgment, 
guided  by  the  experiences  of  all  nations,  might 
elect.  It  may  be  an  accidental  coincidence 
that  in  the  history  of  these  two  people  there 
should  exist  so  many  circumstances  that  bear 
a  striking  similarity  to  one  another,  that  in  re- 
spect to  government  they  should  have  arrived 
at  the  same  result,  the  establishment  of  a 
federal  democratic  republic.  Yet  it  is  doubt- 
less more  in  accord  with  the  logic  of  history, 
which  is  "  philosophy  teaching  by  example," 


The  Genesis  cf  the  Republic.         87 

to  conclude  that  the  former  was  a  material  ele- 
ment in  the  genesis  of  the  latter,  and  a  positive 
influence  in  its  national  formation  aside  from 
any  direct  connection  we  may  succeed  in  tra- 
cing in  these  pages. 


CHAPTER  V. 

MONARCHY  AND  THE   CHURCH. 

THE  primitive  Christians  derived  the  institu- 
tion of  civil  government,  not  from  the  consent  of 
the  people,  but  from  the  decrees  of  God.  The 
king  or  emperor  was  the  Deity's  vicegerent. 
The  public  establishment  of  Christianity  by 
Constantine  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century  had  the  effect  of  placing  the  altar  on 
the  throne,  and  the  ultimate  result  was  the 
desecration  of  the  one  and  the  degradation  of 
the  other.  It  carried  with  it  as  a  state  doc- 
trine the  unconditional  submission  on  the  part 
of  the  governed  to  the  powers  that  be,  as 
preached  by  the  apostle  in  the  reign  of  Nero. 
While  the  establishment  in  its  inception  may 
have  had  the  effect  of  fostering  and  spreading 
the  light  of  the  new  faith  in  the  pagan  world, 
it  proved  on  the  other  hand  a  hindrance  to  the 
development  of  civil  liberty  for  twelve  centuries 
and  more,  distinct  traces  of  which  are  yet  to  be 


Monarchy  and  the  Church.          89 

found  in  the  despotic  governments  of  the  Old 
World.  Its  immediate  consequences  were  the 
augmentation  of  the  power  of  the  Pope  and 
the  subjection  of  every  Christian  country,  in 
matters  temporal  as  well  as  ecclesiastical,  to  the 
throne  of  Peter.  What  countless  miseries  might 
have  been  spared  mankind  had  Constantine  been 
permitted  to  live  and  die  a  pagan,  and  what  effect 
the  continued  separation  of  Church  and  State 
would  have  had  on  the  destinies  of  the  nations 
of  the  earth,  are  subjects  suggesting  a  drift  of 
historical  speculation  that  would  doubtless  be 
replete  with  most  interesting  deductions.  This, 
however,  we  must  leave  to  the  consideration  of 
others.1 

Aside  from  the  countless  benefits  that  flow 
from  Protestantism  in  all  countries,  we  must 

1  "  Whoever  governs  you  his  religion  shall  be  yours  !  Cujus 
regio,  ejus  religio.  Were  ever  more  blasphemous  and  insulting 
words  hurled  in  the  face  of  mankind  ?  Yet  this  was  accepted 
as  the  net  result  of  the  Reformation,  so  far  as  priests  and 
princes  could  settle  the  account.  This  was  the  ingenious  com- 
promise by  which  it  was  thought  possible  to  remove  the 
troublesome  question  of  religion  forever  from  the  sphere  of 
politics.  .  .  .  Not  freedom  of  religion,  but  freedom  of 
princes  to  prescribe  religion  to  their  slaves — for  this  so  many 
tens  of  thousands  had  died  on  the  battle-field,  or  been  burned 
and  buried  alive  !  " — John  Lothrop  Motley,  in  a  lecture  en- 
titled "Historic  Progress,"  delivered  before  the  N.  Y.  His- 
torical Society,  in  1868. 


go          Monarchy  and  the  Church. 

not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  Protestantism 
in  England  had  its  origin  under  Henry  VIII., 
so  far  as  the  King  himself  was  concerned,  in  mo- 
tives that  are  not  to  be  commended.  He  em- 
braced the  cause  not  from  any  noble  purposes, 
not  to  secure  thereby  greater  liberty  for  his 
loyal  subjects,  but  to  procure  greater  license 
for  himself.  The  power  of  the  Pope,  against' 
which  he  rebelled,  he  arrogated  to  himself,  and 
thereby  united  in  his  prerogatives  Church  and 
State.  "  Popedom  was,  after  the  rupture  had 
been  consummated  through  the  folly  of  Pope 
Pius  the  V.,  virtually  effaced  from  the  national 
Christianity.  So  serious  a  void  there  was  a 
temptation,  perhaps  a  necessity,  to  fill,  and 
through  the  force  of  events  more  than  any 
formal  declaration,  it  was  filled  in  the  main  by 
the  sovereign.  This  was  a  result  extremely  ad- 
verse to  civil  freedom.  It  further  heightened 
the  excess  of  regal  power  which  had  already 
marked  the  Tudor  period.  The  doctrines  of 
Divine  Right  and  of  passive  obedience  took 
deep  root  in  England,  and  they  were  peculiarly 
the  growth  of  the  English  Reformation."  * 

1  Right  Honorable  W.  E.  Gladstone,  Contemporary  Review, 
October,  1878. 


Monarchy  and  the  Church.          9 1 

This  unfortunate  union  of  Church  and  State, 
of  the  crosier  and  the  sword,  has  been  the  prime 
source  of  more  bloodshed  in  Europe  than  all 
other  causes  combined.  In  England,  besides 
contributing  to  the  circumstances  that  gave  rise 
to  the  independent  party  which  brought  Charles 
I.  to  the  scaffold,  it  created  the  schism  between 
the  Crown  and  the  Puritans.  This  schism  drove 
many  of  the  latter  to  America,  in  order  that 
they  might  there  enjoy  liberty  of  conscience, 
which  was  denied  them  under  the  Established 
Church ;  and  this  in  turn,  by  the  alarm  occa- 
sioned by  the  frequent  attempts  to  create  an 
established  church  throughout  America,  con- 
tributed in  no  slight  degreee  to  political  liberty 
and  the  severing  of  the  connection  between  the 
colonies  and  the  mother  country.1 

When  we  consider  that  the  prime  motives  of 
the  first  settlers  in  New  England  were  not  for 

1  ' '  Independence  of  English  Church  and  State  was  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  first  colonists,  has  been  its  general 
principle  for  two  hundred  years,  and  now  we  hope  is  past  dis- 
pute. Who  then  was  the  author,  inventor,  discoverer  of  Inde- 
pendence ?  The  only  true  answer  must  be,  the  first  emigrants  ; 
and  the  proof  of  it  is,  the  charter  of  James  the  I.  When  we 
say  that  Otis,  Adams,  Mayhew,  Henry.  Lee,  Jefferson,  etc.,  were 
authors  of  independence,  we  ought  to  say  they  were  only 
awakeners  and  revivers  of  the  original  fundamental  principle  of 
colonization." — Works  of  John  Adams,  vol.  X.,  p.  359. 


92          Monarchy  and  the  Church. 

commerce,  nor  for  wordly  gain,  nor  for  civil  do- 
minion, but  to  secure  for  themselves  liberty  of 
worship,  we  can  understand  why  it  was,  and 
should  be,  that  these  people  were  constantly  on 
their  guard  against  every  act  and  move  of  the 
mother  country  which  in  the  remotest  degree 
might  ultimately  lead  to  an  abridgment  of 
this  sacred  right.  Lord  Chatham,  in  his  cele- 
brated letter  to  the  king,  wrote :  "  They  left 
their  native  land  in  search  of  freedom,  and 
found  it  in  a  desert.  Divided  as  they  are  into 
a  thousand  forms  of  politics  and  religion,  there 
is  one  point  in  which  they  all  agree,  they  equal- 
ly detest  the  pageantry  of  a  king  and  the  super- 
cilious hypocrisy  of  a  bishop." 

The  doctrine  of  "  Divine  Right  "  had  a  deep- 
rooted  significance,  and  held  great  sway  among 
those  who  were  communicants  of  the  Estab- 
lished Church.  It  signified  that  the  king  could 
do  no  wrong  ;  that  whatever  sufferings  the  peo- 
ple might  be  subjected  to  by  reason  of  the 
king's  tyranny  and  cruelty,  it  was  but  proper 
that  the  people  should  bear  them  with  meek- 
ness, for  did  not  the  Apostle  say :  "  Let  every 
soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers,  for  there 
is  no  power  but  of  God.  The  powers  that  be  are 


Monarchy  and  the  Church.          93 

ordained  of  God,"  which  signified  that  in  no 
case  should  the  people  resist  their  lawful  sover- 
eign, no  matter  what  inroads  he  might  make 
upon  their  most  sacred  rights  and  unalienable 
privileges.  The  duty  of  a  subject  is  under 
every  and  all  circumstances  "  unlimited  submis- 
sion "  and  "  non-resistance  ";  for  did  not  the 
Apostle  say  :  "  Whosoever,  therefore,  resisteth 
the  power  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God,  and 
they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  dam- 
nation." It  was  further  maintained  that  the 
king's  cruelty,  tyranny,  and  oppression  was  for 
the  good  of  the  people.  It  was  a  means  God 
employed  to  punish  them  for  transgressions : 
"  For  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger  to 
execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil ;  there- 
fore, ye  must  needs  be  subject  not  only  for 
wrath,  but  also  for  conscience'  sake."  l  "What, 
then,"  it  was  asked,  "  can  there  no  case  happen 
wherein  the  people  may  of  right,  and  by  their 
own  authority,  help  themselves  ;  take  up  arms 
and  set  upon  their  king  imperiously  domineer- 
ing over  them  ?  None  at  all  whilst  he  remains 
a  king.  '  Honor  the  king/  and  *  He  that  re- 

aThe   words   in   quotation  are  from    Romans,    chap,    xiii., 
1-6. 


94          Monarchy  and  the  Church. 

sisteth  resists  the  ordinance  of  God,'  are  divine 
oracles  that  will  never  permit  it." 

Such  were  the  theories  of  government  and  of 
civil  and  religious  liberty  that  were  prevalent 
among  the  ecclesiastics  of  the  Established 
Church  under  James  I.,  and  the  king  was  not 
slow  in  availing  himself  of  this  great  badge  of 
absolutism,  sanctified  by  the  title  of  "  Divine 
Right."  Sir  Robert  Filmer,  who  was  to  James 
I.  what  Bossuet  was  to  Louis  XIV.,  the  stand- 
ard bearer  of  the  rankest  kind  of  absolutism, 
possessing  a  great  mind  cramped  by  a  supersti- 
tious age,  formulated  these  theories  into  a  sys- 
tem which,  according  to  Macaulay,  became  the 
badge  of  the  vilest  class  of  Tories  and  High 
Churchmen.  It  soon  found  many  advocates 
among  those  who  aspired  to  the  king's  favor, 
and  made  rapid  progress  among  the  clergy  of  the 
Established  Church.3  The  execution  of  Charles 
I.  naturally  gave  a  great  check  to  the  doctrine 
of  "  Divine  Right,"  as  well  as  to  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  to  every 
form  of  absolutism,  but  the  change  was  too  sud- 
den to  be  durable ;  a  reaction  was  destined  to 


'Cited  by  Locke  on  Civil  Government  (Lib.  II.,  237)  from 
Barclay's  Contra  Monarchomachos. 
*  History  of  England,  vol.  I.,  chap.  i. 


Monarchy  and  the  Church.          95 

come,  and  soon  after  the  Restoration  many  be- 
gan to  regard  the  late  king  as  a  martyr,  and  the 
day  of  his  death  was  made  one  of  the  sacred 
days,  solemnized  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  humilia- 
tion by  way  of  court  and  compliment  to  King 
Charles  II. 

Thus  the  people  sought  to  ingratiate  them- 
selves with  the  Crown  at  the  expense  of  their 
liberties,  and  yielded  freely  to  Charles  II.  the 
very  liberties  they  beheaded  Charles  I.  for 
usurping.  The  ecclesiastics  made  a  strenuous 
effort  to  recover  their  former  power,  to  revive 
and  reinforce  the  doctrine  of  "  Divine  Right." 
On  the  day  of  the  execution  of  Lord  William 
Russell,  in  1683,  the  University  of  Oxford  de- 
clared :  "  Submission  and  obedience  clear,  ab- 
solute and  without  exception,  to  be  the  badge 
and  character  of  the  Church  of  England."  An 
act  was  passed  by  Parliament  which  acknowl- 
edged not  only  that  the  military  power  was  ex- 
clusively in  the  king,  but  declared  that  in  no 
extremity  whatever  could  Parliament  be  justi- 
fied in  withstanding  him  by  force.  Another 
act  had  passed  which  required  every  officer  of 
a  corporation  to  receive  the  Eucharist  accord- 
ing to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 


96          Monarchy  and  the  Church. 

to  swear  that  he  held  resistance  to  the  king's 
authority  to  be  in  all  cases  unlawful.  About 
the  same  time  the  bishops  were  restored  to 
their  seats  in  the  House  of  Lords.  The  Church 
of  England,  in  return  for  the  protection  it 
received  from  the  crown,  was  not  ungrateful 
She  had  from  her  birth  been  attached  to 
Monarchy,  but  during  the  quarter  of  a  century 
that  followed  the  Restoration,  her  zeal  for 
royal  authority  and  hereditary  right  passed  all 
bounds.  She  accordingly  magnified  every  ele- 
ment of  prerogative.  Her  favorite  theme  was  the 
doctrine  of  Non-Resistance.  That  doctrine  she 
taught  without  exception  or  qualification,  and 
followed  out  to  all  its  extreme  consequences. 

These  considerations  would  not  be  of  interest 
in  this  connection,  were  it  not  that  the  effect  of 
all  such  movements  was  strongly  felt  in  the 
American  colonies,  and  had  great  weight  among 
a  large  and  influential  class  of  Episcopalians, 
"  in  such  a  manner  as  to  undermine  all  the 
principles  of  liberty,  whether  civil  or  religious."1 
And  from  the  further  fact  that  the  adherence  to 
or  dissent  from  the  doctrine  of  "  passive  obedi- 

1  Jonathan  Mayhew's  discourse  concerning  Unlimited  Sub- 
mission and  Non-Resistance  to  Higher  Power,  etc.,  delivered 
in  West  Meeting  House,  Boston,  January  30,  1750. 


Monarchy  and  the  Church.          97 

ence  and  non-resistance  "  in  America  distinctly 
divided  the  Loyalists  from  the  Whigs.  Our 
authority  for  this  statement  is  the  distinguished 
Anglican  divine  and  historian  of  the  revolution, 
Jonathan  Boucher,  who,  in  a  discourse  delivered 
in  the  latter  end  of  1775,  in  the  parish  of  Queen 
Anne,  in  Maryland,  "  On  Civil  Liberty,  Passive 
Obedience,  and  Non-Resistance,"  after  referring 
to  the  meaning  of  that  doctrine  as  applied  to 
the  present  duty  of  the  colonies  as  towards  the 
mother  country,  says  :  "  It  really  is  a  striking 
feature  in  our  national  history,  that  ever  since 
the  Revolution,  hardly  any  person  of  any  note 
has  preached  or  published  a  sermon  into  which 
it  was  possible  to  drag  this  topic  without  de- 
claring against  this  doctrine.  It  seems  to  have 
been  made  a  kind  of  criterion  or  test  of  principle 
and  the  watchword  of  a  party.  What  is  not 
less  remarkable  is,  that  whilst  the  right  of 
resistance  has  thus  incessantly  been  delivered 
from  the  pulpit,  insisted  on  by  orators,  and 
inculcated  by  statesmen,  the  contrary  position 
is  still  (I  believe)  the  dictate  of  religion  and 
certainly  the  doctrine  of  the  Established 
Church,  and  still  also  the  law  of  the  land."  1 

1  From  a  discourse  by  Jonathan  Boucher  in  answer  to  a  ser- 


98          Monarchy  and  the  Church. 

The  Episcopalians,  as  a  class,  in  New  England 
and  in  the  other  colonies,  warmly  espoused  the 
cause  of  the  Crown  ;  as  they  derived  their  ec- 
clesiastical authority  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, loyalty  to  the  king  was  a  part  of  their 
worship,  and  this  fact  was  seized  upon  and 
was  utilized  by  the  Crown,  through  its  colonial 
governors,  from  political  as  well  as  religious 
motives.  George  III.,  before  the  time  when 
the  crisis  arrived  in  America,  had  revived  in  all 
its  force  the  monstrous  doctrine  of  "  Divine 
Right,"  which  the  revolution  was  supposed  to 
have  destroyed.  He  had  the  most  exalted 
notions  of  his  own  prerogatives,  and  to  his 
despotic  temper  was  added  an  overweening 
sense  of  the  homage  due  him  as  head  of 
the  Church.  This  phase  of  George's  character 
little  concerned  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  as 
British  liberty  was  secure,  carefully  guarded  by 
constitutional  limitations  and  by  their  repre- 
sentatives in  the  House  of  Commons.  The 
position  of  America  was  entirely  different  in 
this  respect.  The  royal  theory  as  to  colonies 
was,  that  they  were  Crown  dependencies.  The 

mon  on  the  same  text  and  subject  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Duche, 
preached  and  printed  in  Philadelphia  in  July,  1775. — "Ameri- 
can Revolution,"  by  Boucher,  pp.  495  and  545. 


Monarchy  and  the  Church.          99 

people  had  no  representative  in  Parliament  or 
at  the  court  to  look  after  their  interests,  and  no 
one  to  guard  them  from  injustice,  excepting  a 
Pitt  or  a  Barre,  and  a  few  others  like  them, 
whose  sense  of  right  and  equity  impelled 
them  to  disregard  party  affiliations,  and  to 
plead  the  cause  of  the  outraged  colonists. 

In  Great  Britain  any  attempted  encroach- 
ment of  the  king  or  his  ministers  upon  the 
rights  of  the  people  could  be  checked  by  the 
Commons,  but  as  toward  the  colonists  the  king 
and  Parliament  were  on  the  same  side,  and 
absolutism  had  full  reign,  limited  only  by  the 
power  of  resistance  in  self-defence,  which  the 
people  in  the  colonies,  goaded  by  the  wrongs 
and  injustice  they  had  suffered,  might  be  able 
to  command.  The  result  was,  as  has  already 
been  stated ;  under  different  conditions  the 
Revolution  of  1688  was  reenacted  in  America. 
The  arguments  of  Filmer  and  Hobbes  were 
again  opposed  by  those  of  Sidney  and  Locke. 
The  doctrine  of  "  Divine  right  and  Unlimited 
Submission,"  as  distorted  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, was  battered  down  by  the  laws  of  Moses 
and  the  admonitions  of  Samuel  as  contained 
in  the  Old.  Puritan  theology  was  arrayed 


i  oo        Monarchy  and  the  Church. 

against  the  politico-theologial  tenets  of  the 
Established  Church.  The  divine  supremacy  of 
the  Law,  as  embodied  in  and  illustrated  by  the 
Hebrew  Commonwealth,  was  brought  in  con- 
flict with  the  "  Divine  Right "  of  kings,  as 
exhibited  in  the  absolutism  of  George  III., 
and  out  of  this  struggle  came  to  life  American 
liberty. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  HEBREW  COMMONWEALTH,    THE  FIRST 
FEDERAL   REPUBLIC* 


THE  historians  arid'  ^nte^s.  on  '  'political 
science,  in  tracing;  the  origin  ;  of  ;  'dW6ci'atic 
government,  refer  invariably  to  the  republics 
of  Greece,  assuming  that  civil  liberty  was  first 
cradled  there  under  their  Solons  and  Ly- 
curguses.  We  must  look  farther  back  than 
either  Athens  or  Sparta  for  the  origin  of  the 
blessings  which  we  enjoy,  and  which  are  guar- 
anteed to  us  under  the  forms  of  popular  gov- 
ernment. The  form  of  government  outlined 
by  Moses  and  practically  developed  under 
Joshua  and  his  successors,  first  embodied  the 
principles  upon  which  the  rights  and  liberties 
of  a  people  should  rest  and  be  sustained.  The 
Hebrew  Commonwealth  originated  and  organ- 
ized a  civil  polity  which  the  matured  experience 
of  after-ages  selected  as  the  most  perfect  form 
of  government.  The  best  features  of  the  Greek 

1  See  notes,  page  145. 
101 


IO2       The  Hebrew  Commonwealth, 

and  Roman  republics,  and  as  I  shall  attempt  to 
show  of  our  American  republic,  were  exhibited, 
not  in  dim  outline,  but  in  many  respects  in 
quite  an  advanced  stage  of  development,  in  this 
the  first  of  democratic  republics. 

The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  embraces  that 
period  of-  the  history., of  the  children  of  Israel, 
from  the  Exodus  to  the  selection  of  Saul  as 
king  ;  tha-:  is,  during  the  administration  of 
Moses,  Joshua,  and  the  Judges,  about  550 
years,  according  to  the  generally  approved 
chronology  from  about  1650  B.C.  to  1099  B.C. 
That  the  Israelites  while  in  Egypt  were  under 
some  definite  discipline  and  regulations  of  their 
own,  is  to  be  inferred  not  only  from  the  fact 
that  when  they  left  Egypt  they  did  not  go 
forth  like  a  tumultuous  rabble,  but  marched  as 
an  organized  army  under  regular  leaders,  but 
also  from  the  circumstance  that  when  Moses 
was  first  sent  to  deliver  God's  message  to  the 
children  of  Israel,  he  was  directed  to  "  gather 
the  elders  of  Israel  together,"  and  he  literally 
followed  this  express  direction.  Similar  allu- 
sions to  the  "  elders  "  occur  while  the  children 
of  Israel  were  yet  in  Egypt ;  but  whether 
these  regulations  were  derived  from  patriarchal 


The  First  Federal  Republic.        103 

times  we  have  no  direct  proof.  Moses,  the 
founder  of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  was 
reared  and  educated  in  the  palace  of  Pharaoh, 
and  thereby  doubtless  possessed  the  most 
favorable  opportunities  for  developing  his 
talents.  He  might,  it  is  proper  to  assume, 
have  enjoyed  the  highest  honors  under  the 
king,  had  he  desired  them,  as  the  princess  re- 
garded him  as  her  son.  But  the  sight  of  his 
suffering  brethren  filled  him  with  grief  and 
turned  his  thoughts  to  devising  methods  for 
their  relief.  He  abandoned  the  splendor  and 
luxury  of  the  palace  to  lead  the  life  of  a  simple 
shepherd  in  Midian,  where  he  remained  for 
forty  years,  in  the  meantime  doubtless  perfect- 
ing plans  to  secure  the  release  of  his  enslaved 
brethren.  He  married  the  daughter  of  Jethro, 
a  priest  of  the  Midianites,  and  a  man  of  much 
wisdom,  as  appears  from  every  allusion  to  him, 
and  from  the  excellent  advice  he  gave  to 
Moses.  Forty  years  having  elapsed,  Moses  re- 
appears in  Egypt  as  the  deliverer  of  his  people, 
with  his  plans  and  methods  all  carefully  arranged 
for  the  accomplishment  of  his  noble  purpose. 
In  the  narration  of  the  manner  of  the  release, 
doubtless  the  real  and  the  figurative  are  inter- 


IO4       The  Hebrew  Commonwealth, 

twined  in  accordance  with  the  style  of  the 
writers  of  the  ancient  East.  The  release  is 
effected,  and  the  children  of  Israel,  numbering 
six  hundred  thousand  men  capable  of  bearing 
arms,  which  represented,  according  to  the  gene- 
rally accepted  estimate,  a  total  population  of 
three  millions,  march  forth  from  under  the 
thraldom  of  Pharaoh,  and  establish  their  na- 
tional independence  and  civil  freedom. 

Having  crossed  the  Red  Sea,  the  first  signifi- 
cant step  taken  by  Moses  is  the  separation  of 
Church  and  State,  by  causing  the  priestly  duties 
to  devolve  upon  Aaron,  and  the  military  com- 
mand upon  Joshua,  while  Moses  retains  the 
entire  charge  of  the  civil  administration,  until 
about  the  third  month  of  the  wanderings,  when 
they  arrive  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Sinai.  Then 
"  It  came  to  pass  on  the  morrow  that  Moses 
sat  to  judge  the  people."  When  Jethro,  who  had 
joined  Moses,  saw  how  he  was  occupied  in  judg- 
ing between  one  and  the  other,  he  very  wisely 
counselled  Moses  how  to  delegate  his  authority 
for  the  greater  advantage  of  his  people  and 
with  benefit  to  himself.  "The  thing  that  thou 
doest  is  not  good — this  is  too  heavy  for  thee  ; 
thou  art  not  able  to  perform  it  thyself.  More- 


The  First  Federal  Republic.        105 

over,  thou  shalt  provide  out  of  all  the  people 
able  men,  such  as  fear  God,  men  of  truth,  hating 
covetousness,  and  place  such  over  them  to  be 
rulers  of  thousands  and  rulers  of  hundreds, 
rulers  of  fifties,  and  rulers  of  tens.  So  Moses 
hearkened  to  the  voice  of  his  father-in-law,  and 
did  all  that  he  had  said." — Exodus  xviii.,  13-24. 
That  he  did  so  hearken  and  follow  this  wise 
counsel  of  his  father-in-law  appears  by  Moses' 
own  statement  some  forty  years  afterward,  as 
contained  in  Deuteronomy  i.,  9,  13,  and  15: 
"  And  I  spake  unto  you  at  that  time  saying,  *  I 
am  not  able  to  bear  you  myself  alone.  Take 
you  wise  men,  and  understanding,  and  known 
among  your  tribes,  and  I  will  make  them  rulers 
over  you.'  And  ye  answered  me  and  said, 
'  The  thing  which  thou  hast  spoken  is  good  for 
us  to  do.' "  These  and  other  similar  passages 
distinctly  prove  the  practical  establishment  and 
adoption  of  the  essential  principles  of  demo- 
cratic government.  First,  that  of  representa- 
tion— the  text  is  (hdbu),  take  you  or  select  for 
yourself,  not  that  I  will  make  rulers  over  you 
of  my  own  selection  ;  but  the  words  of  Moses 
are:  "Take  you  or  select  for  yourselves,"  and 
such  as  you  select  I  will  make  them  rulers. 


io6       The  Hebrew  Commonwealth, 

Secondly,  we  discover  here  the  recognition  and 
adoption  of  the  principle  of  civil  equality  in  its 
fullest  application,  in  that  we  find  that  the 
rulers  and  officers  were  not  to  be  taken  from 
any  special  favored  or  privileged  class,  but  "  out 
of  all  the  people."  And  who  were  these  rulers 
to  be?  Were  they  to  be  men  of  wealth  from 
any  particular  tribe  or  family  ?  No,  they  must 
be  men  of  recognized  fitness  and  capacity, 
of  high  moral  worth,  pure  and  righteous 
men  who  would  not  betray  their  sacred  trust 
for  selfish  ends.  "  Able  men,  such  as  fear  God, 
men  of  truth,  hating  covetousness — wise  men, 
and  understanding,  and  known  among  your 
tribes."  These  were  the  qualities  that  the  rep- 
resentative must  possess,  that  are  as  all-suffi- 
cient now  as  they  were  then,  and  of  which  the 
American  people  were  continually  reminded 
during  the  period  of  their  organization  of  gov- 
ernment by  the  public  orators  and  preachers 
of  election  sermons. 

The  children  of  Israel  having  arrived  in  sight 
of  the  Promised  Land,  their  great  lawgiver 
summons  them  all  before  him ;  he  recounts 
to  them  their  whole  eventful  history,  their 
hardships,  their  toils,  their  sufferings  and  their 


The  First  Federal  Republic.        107 

triumphs  ;  he  recapitulates  and  codifies  their 
laws  and  causes  them  to  be  written  in  one  brief 
book,  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  which  are 
thereupon  adopted  by  the  whole  people  under 
the  most  solemn  and  awe-inspiring  circum- 
stances. He  admonishes  them  to  keep  these 
laws  fresh  in  their  memory,  and  directs  that 
they  shall  be  read  before  all  Israel  at  the  end 
of  every  seven  years,  in  solemnity  of  the 
year  of  release,  on  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 
The  people  bind  their  part  of  the  cove- 
nant by  answering  :  "  All  that  Jehovah  hath 
spoken  we  will  do."  Moses  then  commits  the 
book  of  the  laws  into  the  custody  of  the  Le- 
vites,  the  tribe  especially  set  apart  for  the 
service  of  religion  and  as  instructors  and  teach- 
ers of  the  nation,  who,  as  Moses  expressly  de- 
clares :  "  Shall  teach  Jacob  thy  judgments,  and 
Israel  thy  law."  Moses  is  succeeded  by  Joshua, 
who  leads  his  conquering  armies  over  the 
Jordan.  Before  settling  in  the  Promised 
Land  the  law  is  again  promulgated,  and  Jos- 
hua is  confirmed  as  chief  executive  by  the 
voice  of  the  people.  Joshua  is  succeeded  by 
the  Shophetim  or  Judges,  of  whom  the  Scrip- 
tures enumerate  fourteen  in  all,  from  Othniel 
to  Samuel. 


io8       The  Hebrew  Commonwealth, 

The  Judges  were  elected  by  the  people,  and 
summoned  to  power  as  the  necessities  of  the 
times  demanded ;  they  were  statesmen-heroes, 
and  after  the  occasion  for  which  they  were 
called  to  assume  the  head  of  the  confeder- 
ate nation  had  passed  away,  they  usually  re- 
tired to  their  humble  occupations,  as  was  no- 
tably the  case  with  Gideon.  The  government 
under  the  Judges  was  very  much  like  our  own 
Federal  Government :  each  tribe  had  its  own  tri- 
bal or  state  government,  which  had  jurisdiction 
over  all  local  affairs,  and  it  sent  its  duly  elected 
representatives  to  the  national  congress.  This 
government,  from  the  fact  that  God,  the  source 
of  all  power,  the  embodiment  of  the  law,  and 
not  a  king,  was  ruler  of  the  nation,  is  termed 
by  various  writers  a  Theocracy,  or  Nomocracy 
(from  nomos,  meaning  law),  or  a  Common- 
wealth. 

Many  writers  fall  into  the  error  of  defining 
this  theocratic  government  as  a  government  by 
priests,  or  a  purely  religious  commonwealth. 
The  very  fact  that  the  Levites,  the  tribe  of 
priests,  were  separated  from  the  other  tribes, 
and  that,  with  the  single  exception  of  Eli, 
no  priest  was  ever  elected  to  the  chief  magis- 


The  First  Federal  Republic.        1 09 

tracy  during  the  entire  period  of  the  Common- 
wealth, decidedly  negatives  any  such  interpreta- 
tion. The  central  or  national  government  was 
divided  into  three  departments  ;  they  were  : 

First. — The  Chief  Executive,  who  was  styled 
Judge  or  Shophete.1  He  was  vested  with  chief 
command  in  war,  and  was  at  the  same  time  the 
first  magistrate  in  peace.  He  summoned  the 
senatorial  and  popular  assemblies,  proposed 
subjects  for  their  deliberation,  presided  in  their 
councils,  and  executed  their  resolutions.  In 
the  words  of  the  learned  Calmet :  "  He  was 
protector  of  the  law,  defender  of  religion.  He 
was  without  pomp,  without  followers,  without 
equipage.  The  revenue  of  his  office  was  mere- 
ly gratuitious.  He  had  no  settled  stipend,  nor 
did  he  raise  any  thing  from  the  people."3  That 
the  Chief  Executive  might  not  wield  arbitrary 
power,  and  at  the  same  time  to  divide  the 
responsibility  of  government  and  thereby  to  aid 

1  The  Carthaginians  had  rulers,  whom  they  styled  Suffites, 
whose  name  seems  to  be  derived  from  the  same  stem,  and 
whose  authority  resembled  in  some  particulars  that  of  Shophe- 
tim,  or  successors  of  Joshua.  Livii:  Hist.  Lib.,  xxviii.,  37, 
Lib.  xxx.,  7. 

9  See  also  Lowmanon  "Civil  Government  of  the  Hebrews," 
ch.  10;  and  Dupin,  "Complete  History  of  the  Canon,"  Book 
I.,  ch.  3,  sec.  3. 


no       The  Hebrew  Commonwealth, 

him  in  conducting  the  affairs  of  state,  a  Senate 
was  elected  of  seventy  elders. 

Second. — The  Senate,  Sanhedrim  or  Syned- 
rium.  Whether  it  had  its  origin  in  Jethro's 
advice  to  Moses,  above  referred  to,  or  came 
into  being  a  year  later  (Numbers  xi.,  16,  24),  is 
a  matter  concerning  which  biblical  expositors 
are  divided.  That  a  permanent  national  senate 
was  created  at  this  latter  period  is  maintained 
very  generally  by  Jewish  writers,  as  well  as  by 
such  scholars  as  Sidney,  Grotius,  and  Selden. 
The  former  claim  that  this  senate  continued 
with  but  short  interruptions  from  that  time 
until  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  was  revived 
and  reorganized  on  more  definite  principles 
after  the  return  of  the  Jews  to  Jerusalem. 
Some  writers  even  go  so  far  as  to  deny  that  this 
council  of  seventy  was  a  legislative  body,  and 
claim  that  it  was  purely  judicial.  I  am  inclined 
to  the  opinion  that  although  its  chief  functions 
were  legislative,  and  occupied  the  same  position 
in  the  frame  of  government  as  our  senate,  yet 
it  was  at  the  same  time  a  high  court  of  justice, 
the  legislative  and  judicial  departments  being 
united  as  in  the  English  House  of  Lords.  The 
learned  commentators  Michaelis  and  Jahn 


The  First  Federal  Republic.        1 1 1 

agree  in  their  views  as  to  the  nature  and  func- 
tions of  this  senate.  I  quote  the  former,  who 
says :  "  Moses  established  in  the  wilderness 
another  institution  which  has  been  commonly 
held  to  be  of  a  judicial  nature,  and  under  the 
name  of  Sanhedrim  or  Synedrium,  much 
spoken  of  both  by  Jews  and  Christians, 
although  it  probably  was  not  of  long  continu- 
ance.1 

"  A  rebellion  that  arose  among  the  Israelites 
distressed  Moses  exceedingly.  In  order  to 
lessen  the  weight  of  the  burden  and  the 
responsibilities  that  oppressed  him,  he  chose 
from  the  twelve  tribes  collectively  a  council 
of  seventy  persons  to  assist  him.  It  seems 
much  more  likely  that  this  selection  was 
intended  for  a  Supreme  Senate." 

Third. — The  Assembly.  This  was  the  popu- 
lar branch  of  government,  and  that  such 
existed  is  very  evident  from  numerous  pas- 
sages which  directly  refer  thereto,  and  from 

1 J.  M.  Mathews,  D.D.,  in  his  book  of  lectures  entitled 
4<  The  Bible  and  Civil  Government,"  proves  quite  conclusively 
that  the  senate  was  a  permanent  national  body.  ' '  It  seems, 
in  some  respects,  to  have  been  like  an  Upper  House,  as  the 
senate  in  our  own  government,  or  in  other  respects  like  a  High 
Court  of  Appeal,  whose  decisions  and  ordinances  would  give 
weight  to  their  proceedings  and  their  acts." — P.  227. 


112       The  Hebrew  Commonwealth, 

distinctions  made  between  "  all  Israel "  and 
this  third  department  or  assembly.  Its  charac- 
teristics and  constitution  are  not  so  definitely 
laid  down  as  those  of  the  senate,  nor  does  the 
Scriptures  inform  us  of  how  many  individuals  it 
was  composed.  This  assembly  is  styled  generally 
the  "  Congregation,"  the  "  whole  Congregation," 
"  all  the  Congregation,"  and  that  these  terms 
did  not  mean  all  the  children  of  Israel  numeri- 
cally, but  only  in  their  representative  capacity, 
is  clear  from  the  context  itself,  especially  when, 
from  the  nature  of  the  occasion,  the  whole 
population  could  not  have  possibly  acted.  For 
instance,  when  it  was  commanded  respecting 
an  offender,  "  Let  all  the  congregation  stone 
him,"  it  surely  could  not  have  meant  that  the 
three  million  should  do  it  ?  "  From  various 
passages  of  the  Pentateuch,"  says  the  learned 
commentator,  Michaelis,  "we  find  that  Moses, 
at  making  known  the  laws,  had  to  convene  the 
whole  congregation  of  Israel ;  and  in  like  man- 
ner, in  the  Book  of  Joshua,  we  see  that  when 
Diets  were  held  the  whole  congregation  were  as- 
sembled. If,  on  such  occasions,  every  individual 
had  to  give  his  vote,  every  thing  would  certainly 
have  been  democratic  in  the  highest  degree  ; 


The  First  Federal  Republic.        113 

but  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  how,  #  *  *  for 
this  circumstance  alone  must  convince  any  one 
that  Moses  could  only  have  addressed  himself 
to  a  certain  number  of  persons  deputed  to  rep- 
resent the  rest  of  the  Israelites.  Accordingly, 
in  Numbers  i.,  16,  mention  is  made  of  such 
persons,  and  in  contradistinction  to  the  com- 
mon Israelites  they  are  there  denominated 
Keriie  Haeda — that  is,  those  wont  to  be  called 
to  the  convention."  Algernon  Sidney,  whose 
"Discourses  concerning  Government  "  was  the 
chief  text-book  of  the  founders  of  our  govern- 
ment, and  whose  works  were  to  be  found  in  the 
libraries  of  Franklin,  Adams,  Jefferson,  and 
many  others  of  our  scholars,  statesmen,  and 
divines,  sums  up  his  estimate  of  the  Hebrew 
Commonwealth  in  these  words :  "  Having  seen 
what  government  God  did  not  ordain,  it  may  be 
reasonable  to  examine  the  nature  of  govern- 
ment he  did  ordain,  and  we  shall  find  it  consisted 
of  those  parts,  besides  the  magistrates  of  the 
several  tribes  and  cities :  They  had  a  chief 
Magistrate,  who  was  called  Judge  or  Captain, 
as  Joshua,  Gideon,  and  others ;  a  Council  of 
seventy  chosen  men,  and  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  people.  The  first  was  merely  occa- 


114       The  Hebrew  Commonwealth, 

sional,  like  to  the  Dictators  of  Rome.  *  *  * 
The  second  is  known  by  the  name  of  the  Great 
Sanhedrim,  which,  being  instituted  by  Moses, 
according  to  the  command  of  God,  continued 
till  they  were  all,  save  one,  slain  by  Herod. 
And  the  third,  which  is  the  Assembly  of  the 
people,  was  so  common  that  none  can  be  igno- 
rant of  it,  but  such  as  never  looked  into  the 
Scripture."  1  The  author  then  cites  Josephus, 
Philo,  Maimonides,  and  Abarbanel  in  confirma- 
tion of  his  text. 

Aside  from  this  popular  and  progressive 
system  of  government  that  was  organized  by 
Moses  and  his  immediate  successors,  a  number 
of  statutes  were  passed,  doubtless  with  a  view 
of  raising  the  people  up  to  such  a  standard  of 
moral  worth  that  they  might  be  a  law  unto 
themselves  and  long  cherish  the  blessings  of 
civil  freedom  under  their  God-given  govern- 
ment ;  statutes  that  lie  at  the  root  of  our  most 
advanced  civilization,  that  embody  the  highest 
justice  and  the  broadest  humanity.  They  had 
their  statutes  of  limitations,  which  provided 
that  at  the  end  of  every  cycle  of  seven  times 
seven  years,  in  the  year  of  jubilee,  all  debts 

1  "Discourses  Concerning  Government,"  Chap.  II.,  Sec.  9. 


The  First  Federal  Republic.        1 1 5 

should  be  cancelled  and  all  unfulfilled  obliga- 
tions annulled.  In  that  year,  likewise,  all  agri- 
cultural property  and  all  realty  other  than  real 
estate  located  in  walled  cities  was  to  revert  to 
the  original  owner  or  to  his  heirs  at  law,  dis- 
charged from  all  liens,  debts,  and  encumbrances. 
In  this  wise  the  permanent  accumulation  of 
large  tracts  of  lands  in  single  hands  or  families 
was  rendered  impossible,  and  thereby  would 
have  been  prevented  that  species  of  slavery 
known  as  the  feudal  system. 

No  better  law  than  that  of  Moses  could  have 
been  devised  to  maintain  political  equality. 
The  effect  was  the  same  as  if  the  state  retained 
the  fee  and  every  fifty  years  made  leases  to 
every  head  of  a  family  at  a  nominal  rental.  In 
fact,  we  find  a  positive  provision  that  the  land 
should  not  be  permanently  alienated :  "  The 
land  shall  not  be  sold  forever ;  for  the  land 
is  mine,  for  ye  are  strangers  and  sojourners 
with  me  "  (Levit.  xxv.,  23).  The  home- 
stead and  exemption  laws  find  their  origin 
in  the  following  humane  provision  of  the 
Mosaic  code  :  "  No  man  shall  take  the  upper 
or  nether  millstone  to  pledge  ;  for  he  taketh  a 
man's  life  to  pledge."  The  principle  embodied 


'i  1 6       The  Hebrew  Commonwealth, 

in  this  law  is  being  gradually  recognized  in  the 
civil  laws  of  all  nations,  that  a  man  cannot  by 
distraint  for  debt  be  deprived  of  the  necessary 
means  of  sustaining  life.  Provisions  were  also 
made  prohibiting  the  land  proprietor  from 
gleaning  the  fields  and  reaping  the  corners,  so 
that  the  poor  and  the  stranger  might  gather 
the  leavings,  and  thus  be  relieved  without  being 
humiliated. 

Akin  to  this  humane  and  tender  considera- 
tion for  the  poor  are  the  statutes  requiring  the 
master  to  pay  the  hire  of  his  servant  promptly 
on  the  day  when  due  :  "  Neither  shall  the  sun  go 
down  upon  it,  for  he  is  poor  and  setteth  his 
heart  upon  it."  There  is  a  sense  of  mingled 
kindness  and  justice  expressed  in  this  injunc- 
tion, and  the  reasons  assigned  for  its  strict 
obedience  appeal  touchingly  to  the  master's 
obligation.  Numerous  other  laws  of  universal 
application  are  contained  in  this  code,  which 
provides  not  only  for  justice  tempered  with 
mercy,  as  between  man  and  man,  but  prohibits 
cruelty  towards  the  lower  animals. 

The  lessons  of  the  decline  of  this  republic 
are  as  valuable  and  instructive  as  that  of  its 
development.  It  was  not  subverted  by  force 


The  First  Federal  Republic.       1 1 7 

nor  by  the  tricks  or  cunning  devices  of  unscrup- 
ulous leaders,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
Grecian,  Roman,  and  Venetian  republics,  but 
by  the  people  exercising  their  democratic  pre- 
rogative, the  right  of  choice  to  set  up  over 
themselves  such  form  of  government  as  they 
might  elect.  Their  original  constitution  pro- 
vided for  such  a  contingency,  and  while  giving 
warnings  against  it,  contained  instructions  for 
establishing  a  form  of  monarchy  which  would 
be  farthest  removed  from  tyranny.  Thus  we 
see  at  this  early  period  of  mankind — 1,500  years 
and  more  before  the  Christian  era,  before  Rome 
had  obtained  a  foothold  in  history,  500  years 
before  Homer  sang,  and  1,000  years  before 
Plato  had  dreamed  of  his  ideal  republic,  when 
all  Western  Europe  was  an  untrodden  wilder- 
ness— the  children  of  Israel  on  the  banks  of  the 
Jordan,  who  had  just  emerged  from  centuries 
of  bondage,  not  only  recognized  the  guiding 
principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  that 
"  all  men  are  created  equal,"  that  God  and  the 
law  are  the  only  kings,  but  also  established  a 
free  commonwealth,  a  pure  democratic-republic 
under  a  written  constitution,  "  a  government  of 
the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people." 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  INFLUENCE  OF  THE  HEBREW  COMMON- 
WEALTH  UPON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  REPUB- 
LICAN GOVERNMENT  IN  THE  UNITED 
STA  TES. 

IT  is  remarkable,  that  of  the  many  historians 
who  have  written  so  ably  and  minutely  of  the 
history  of  the  United  States,  none  should  have 
observed  in  his  writings  the  relationship  be- 
tween our  republic  and  the  commonwealth  of 
the  Hebrews,  especially  in  the  light  of  the 
earliest  constitutions  of  several  of  the  New 
England  colonies  expressly  framed  upon  the 
model  of  the  Mosaic  code  as  a  guide,  and  of 
the  frequent  references  thereto  made  by  the 
ministers  in  their  political  sermons,  who  con- 
stantly drew  their  civil  creed  from  the  history 
of  those  times,  and  held  up  this  ancient  form 
of  government  as  a  model  inspired  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Most  High. 

The  distinguished  Jonathan  Mayhew,  the 
divine  whom  Robert  Treat  Paine  styled  "  the 
118 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    119 

father  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  in  Massa- 
chusetts and  in  America,"  who  suggested  to 
James  Otis  the  idea  of  a  committee  of  corre- 
spondence,1 a  measure  of  great  efficiency  in  pro- 
ducing concert  of  action  between  the  colonies, 
and  who  as  early  as  1750  delivered  a  discourse 
against  unlimited  submission  and  non-resist- 
ance, a  sermon  which  was  characterized  as 
"The  morning  gun  of  the  Revolution,"  in  a 
later  discourse  delivered  in  Boston  on  May 
23,  1766,  on  the  "  Repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act," 
says :  "  God  gave  Israel  a  king  (or  absolute 
monarchy)  in  his  anger,  because  they  had  not 
sense  and  virtue  enough  to  like  a  free  common- 
wealth, and  to  have  himself  for  their  king, — 

1  The  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  originated  the  meas- 
ures that  resulted  in  the  union  of  the  colonies  by  instituting 
the  "Committee  of  Correspondence,"  who  should  keep  each 
colony  advised  of  what  was  passing  in  all  the  others,  and 
should  concert  plans  of  action.  This  idea  came  from  Dr.  May- 
hew,  who  wrote  to  James  Otis  in  1766  as  follows :  "Lord's 
Day,  June  8th.  To  a  good  man  all  time  is  holy  enough,  and 
none  is  too  holy  to  do  good,  or  to  think  upon  it.  Cultivating 
a  good  understanding  and  hearty  friendship  between  these  colo- 
nies appears  to  me  so  necessary  a  part  of  prudence  and  good 
policy  that  no  favorable  opportunity  for  that  purpose  should  be 
omitted. "  He  then  adds  :  ' '  You  have  heard  of  the  Com- 
munion of  Churches  : — while  I  was  thinking  of  this  in  my  bed, 
the  great  use  and  importance  of  a  Communion  of  Colonies 
appeared  to  me  in  a  strong  light,  which  led  me  immediately  to 
set  down  these  hints  and  transmit  to  you." 


I 


1 20      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

where  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  is  there  is  liberty, 
— and  if  any  miserable  people  on  the  continent 
or  isles  of  Europe  be  driven  in  their  extremity  to 
seek  a  safe  retreat  from  slavery  in  some  far  dis- 
tant'clime — O  let  them  find  one  in  America." 

Samuel  Langdon,  D.D.,  the  President  of 
Harvard  College,  who,  through  the  influence  of 
John  Hancock,  was  installed  in  that  office  as 
the  successor  of  Samuel  Locke,  and  who,  after- 
wards, in  1788,  was  a  member  of  the  New 
Hampshire  convention  when  the  constitution 
came  before  that  body  for  adoption,  in  his 
election  sermon  delivered  before  the  "  Honora- 
ble Congress  of  Massachusetts  Bay "  on  the 
3 1st  of  May,  1775,  taking  as  his  text  the  pas- 
sage in  Isaiah,  i.,  26,  "  And  I  will  restore  thy 
judges  as  at  the  first,"  etc.,  delivered  a  most 
eloquent  discourse,  wherein  he  traces  the  his- 
tory of  government  from  the  first  recorded 
beginning,  and  defines  its  functions  and  prerog- 
atives with  a  logic  that  proves  him  to  have 
been  well  versed  in  the  doctrines  of  civil  liberty 
as  handed  down  through  the  writings  of  Sid- 
ney, Milton,  Hoadley,  and  his  eminent  prede- 
cessor, Locke.  These  are  his  words :  "  The 
Jewish  government,  according  to  the  original 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    121 

constitution  which  was  divinely  established, 
if  considered  merely  in  a  civil  view,  was  a 
perfect  republic.  And  let  them  who  cry  up  the 
divine  right  of  kings  consider,  that  the  form  of 
government  which  had  a  proper  claim  to  a 
divine  establishment  was  so  far  from  including 
the  idea  of  a  king,  that  it  was  a  high  crime  for 
Israel  to  ask  to  be  in  this  respect  like  other 
nations,  and  when  they  were  thus  gratified,  it 
was  rather  as  a  just  punishment  for  their  folly. 
Every  nation,  when  able  and  agreed,  has  a  right 
to,  set  up  over  itself  any  form  of  government 
which  to  it  may  appear  most  conducive  to  its 
common  welfare.  The  civil  polity  of  Israel  is 
doubtless  an  excellent  general  model,  allowing 
for  some  peculiarities ;  at  least,  some  principal 
laws  and  orders  of  it  may  be  copied  in  more 
modern  establishments." 

By  a  special  vote  Dr.  Langdon's  sermon  was 
ordered  to  be  printed  and  sent  to  each  minister 
in  the  colony  and  to  each  member  of  the  Con- 
gress. What  effect  such  words  as  these  had 
upon  the  minds  of  the  people  in  general  in 
preparing  them  for  independence,  as  well  as 
upon  the  founders  of  our  republic,  each  and  all 
of  whom  doubtless  read  this  sermon,  is  scarcely 


122      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

a  matter  of  conjecture  when  we  take  into  con- 
sideration that  he  was  not  only  a  ripe  scholar 
occupying  the  most  important  literary  position 
in  America,  as  President  of  Harvard  College, 
but  one  of  the  foremost  ministers  and  pulpit 
orators,  as  well  as  an  acknowledged  authority 
in  the  science  of  government.1 

On  the  1 7th  of  May,  1776,  which  was  kept  as 
a  national  fast,  George  Duffield,  the  minister  of 
the  Third  Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia, 
with  John  Adams  as  a  listener,  drew  a  parallel 
between  George  III.  and  Pharaoh,  and  inferred 
that  the  same  providence  of  God  which  had 
rescued  the  Israelites  from  Egyptian  bondage 
intended  to  free  the  colonies.  The  election  ser- 
mon of  the  following  year  was  preached  on  the 
29th  of  May,  1776,  some  forty  days  before  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  before  "the  Hon- 
orable Council  and  the  Honorable  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  Colony  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,"  by  the  Rev.  Samuel  West.  He  was  not 
behind  his  professional  brethren  in  zeal  for  the 
welfare  and  liberty  of  his  country.  He  was  a 
member  of  the  convention  for  forming  the  con- 
stitution of  Massachusetts,  and  of  that  of  1788, 

1  See  notes,  page  145. 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    1 23 

which  ratified  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  He  took  his  text  from  Isaiah  i.,  26, 
the  same  as  was  taken  by  Dr.  Langdon  above 
quoted.  He  discusses  the  entire  political 
situation  of  the  times.  "  We  are  to  remember 
that  all  men  being  by  nature  equal,  they  have 
a  right  to  make  such  regulation  as  they  deem 
necessary  for  the  good  of  all  ;  that  magis- 
trates have  no  authority  but  what  they  derive 
from  the  people."  He  then  passes  in  review 
those  two  famous  passages  from  the  New 
Testament,  which  I  have  already  referred  to, 
under  whose  authority  monarchs,  tyrants,  and 
usurpers  have  claimed  as  sanctioned  by  Holy 
Scriptures  the  right  of  obedience  under  all 
circumstances,  and  from  which  were  deduced 
the  doctrines  of  "  Divine  Right,"  and  "  Un- 
limited Submission."  From  this  he  passes  in 
review  the  history  of  civil  government,  and 
sums  up  by  saying :  "  There  was  great  deal 
of  propriety  in  the  advice  Jethro  gave  to 
Moses  to  provide  able  men — men  of  truth, — 
and  to  appoint  them  for  rulers  over  the  people ; 
(then  quoting  the  words  of  David):  '  He  that 
ruleth  over  men  must  be  just,  ruling  in  the  fear 
of  God/  " 


124      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

The  election  sermon  in  1780  was  delivered 
before  the  same  body,  the  Council  and  House 
of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Massachu- 
setts, by  Rev.  Mr.  Simeon  Howard,  .who  suc- 
ceeded Dr.  Mayhew  as  pastor  of  the  West 
Church  of  Boston.  Among  his  hearers  were 
Robert  Treat  Paine  and  Samuel  Adams.  The 
latter  submitted  to  Rev.  Mr.  Howard  the  resolu- 
tion of  both  Houses  of  the  General  Assembly, 
containing  an  expression  of  thanks,  and  request- 
ing a  copy  for  the  press.  Taking  as  his  text 
Exodus  xviii.,  21 — "Thou  shalt  provide  out 
of  all  thy  people  able  men,  such  as  fear  God, 
men  of  truth,  hating  coveteousness ;  and  place 
such  over  them  to  be  rulers,"  he  divides  his 
sermon  under  four  heads:  1st.  Necessity  of 
civil  government ;  2d.  The  right  of  the  people 
to  choose  their  own  rulers ;  3d.  The  business  of 
rulers ;  and  4th.  The  qualifications  as  pointed 
out  in  the  text  as  necessary  for  civil  rulers.  His 
sermon  is  almost  entirely  devoted  to  the  ex- 
position of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth  under 
Moses ;  that  it  was  a  government  by  the  peo- 
ple under  the  guidance  of  God  Almighty  ;  and 
the  rulers  were  not  appointed,  but  elected. 
His  words  are  :  "This  is  asserted  by  Josephus 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    1 2  5 

and  plainly  intimated  by  Moses  in  his  recapitu- 
latory discourses,  and  indeed  the  Jews  always 
exercised  the  right  of  choosing  their  own  rulers ; 
even  Saul  and  David  and  all  their  successors  on 
the  throne  were  made  kings  by  the  voice  of  the 
people." 

On  May  8,  1783,  at  Hartford,  before  "His 
Excellency  Governor  Trumbull  and  the  Honor- 
able General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Connec- 
ticut," the  election  sermon  was  preached  by  the 
eminent  President  of  Yale  College,  Rev.  Dr. 
Ezra  Stiles,  who  as  early  as  1760  predicted  that 
"  the  imperial  dominion  will  subvert  as  it  ought 
in  election."  He  was  the  lifelong  friend  of 
Franklin,  and  to  whom  Franklin,  who  was  re- 
garded by  some  as  an  atheist,  because  his  pure 
and  simple  deism  conformed  with  no  estab- 
lished sect,  wrote  in  his  eighty-fourth  year  as 
follows :  "  You  desire  to  know  something  of 
my  religion ;  it  is  the  first  time  I  have  been 
questioned  upon  it.  Here  is  my  creed  :  I  be- 
lieve in  one  God,  creator  of  the  universe  ;  that 
he  ought  to  be  worshipped  ;  that  the  most 
acceptable  service  we  render  to  him,  is  doing 
good  to  his  other  children.  As  to  Jesus  of  Na- 
zareth, I  think  his  system  of  morals,  as  he  left 


126      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

them  to  us,  the  best  the  world  ever  saw,  or  is 
like  to  see  ;  but  I  apprehend  it  has  received  vari- 
ous corrupting  changes,  and  I  have  some  doubts 
as  to  his  divinity."  1  Dr.  Stiles,  taking  for  his 
text  Deut.  xxvi.,  19 — "And  to  make  thee  high 
above  all  nations  which  he  has  made,  in  praise, 
and  in  name,  and  in  honor,"  etc.,  delivered  a 
discourse — subject,  "  The  United  States  Ele- 
vated to  Glory  and  Honor."  This  sermon  takes 
up  one  hundred  and  twenty  closely  printed 
pages,  and  assumes  the  proportions  of  a  trea- 
tise on  government  from  the  Hebrew  The- 
ocracy down  to  the  then  present,  showing  by 
illustration  and  history  that  the  culmination 
of  popular  government  had  been  reached  in 
America,  transplanted  by  divine  hands  in  ful- 
filment of  biblical  prophecy  from  the  days  of 
Moses  to  the  land  of  Washington  ;  and  discuss- 
ing from  an  historical  point  of  view  "  the  reasons 
rendering  it  probable  that  the  United  States 
will,  by  the  ordering  of  Heaven,  eventually  be- 
come this  people." 

His  words  are :  "  Here  (at  the  foot  of  Mount 
Nebo)  the  man  of  God,  Moses,  assembled  three 

1  See  Bigelow's  "  Life  of  Franklin,  Written  by  Himself,"  vol. 
III.,  p.  459- 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    127 

millions  of  people — the  number  of  the  United 
States, — recapitulated  and  gave  them  a  second 
publication  of  the  sacred  Jural  Institute,  de- 
livered thirty-eight  years  before  under  the  most 
awful  solemnity  at  Mt.  Sinai.  He  foresaw  indeed 
their  rejection  of  God,  whence  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  by  divine  direction,  interspersed  their 
writings  with  promises  that  when  the  ends  of 
God's  moral  government  should  be  answered, 
he  would  recover  and  gather  them  (quoting 
Deut.  xxx.,  3)  '  from  all  the  nations  whither 
God  had  scattered  them/  *  *  *  Then  the 
words  of  Moses  hitherto  accomplished  but  in 
part,  will  be  literally  fulfilled.  I  shall,"  he  con- 
tinues, "  enlarge  no  further  upon  the  primary 
sense  and  literal  accomplishment  of  this  and 
numerous  other  prophecies  respecting  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles  in  the  latter-day  glory  of  the 
church  ;  for  I  have  assumed  the  text  only  as 
introductory  to  a  discourse  upon  the  political 
welfare  of  God's  American  Israel,  and  as 
allusively  prophetic  of  the  future  prosperity  and 
splendor  of  the  United  States."  Referring  to 
the  success  of  our  armies  under  Washington, 
whereby  the  independence  and  sovereignty  of 
the  United  States  was  established  and  recog- 


128      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

nized  by  Great  Britain  herself  in  less  than 
eight  years,  he  says :  "  Whereupon  Congress 
put  at  the  head  of  the  spirited  army  the  only 
man  on  whom  the  eyes  of  all  Israel  were  placed. 
Posterity,  incredulous  as  they  may  be,  will  yet 
acknowledge  that  this  American  Joshua  was 
raised  up  by  God  for  the  great  work  of  leading 
the  armies  of  this  American  Joseph  (now  sep- 
arated from  his  brethren),  and  conducting  these 
people  to  liberty  and  independence."  Such  is 
the  reasoning  of  Dr.  Stiles,  a  man  who  was  held 
in  the  highest  esteem  and  most  profound  re- 
spect by  every  American  for  his  learning, 
patriotism,  and  wisdom.  Chancellor  Kent  said 
of  him,  in  an  address  delivered  at  the  Yale 
Commencement  in  1831 :  "A  more  constant 
and  devoted  friend  to  the  revolution  and  inde- 
pendence of  his  country  never  existed.  Take 
him  for  all  in  all,  this  very  man  was  un- 
doubtedly one  of  the  purest  and  best-gifted 
men  of  his  age." 

On  December  n,  1783,  appointed  as  a  day  of 
thanksgiving  by  Congress,  upon  the  restoration 
of  peace,  Rev.  Dr.  Duffield,  of  the  Third  Presby- 
terian Church  in  Philadelphia,  and  one  of  the 
chaplains  of  Congress,  preached  the  sermon  of 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    129 

the  day  before  a  most  distinguished  audience 
of  citizens  and  legislators.  Dr.  Duffield  was 
also  one  of  the  most  eminent  divines  in  Amer- 
ica, recognized  not  only  for  his  great  learning 
and  eloquence,  but  prominent  by  reason  of  his 
zeal  in  the  cause  of  independence,  and  for  his 
devotion  to  the  public  welfare,  and  for  his  com- 
manding influence  among  his  fellow  men.  This 
sermon,  together  with  others  to  which  reference 
has  been  made,  illustrate  how  thoroughly  the 
pulpit  was  imbued  with  the  Mosaic  ideas  and 
polity.  The  affairs  of  the  colonies  in  their 
every  condition  were  constantly  compared  with 
those  of  the  children  of  Israel.  Dr.  Stiles,  in 
his  celebrated  sermon  above  quoted,  went  so 
far  in  that  direction  as  to  advance  reasons  why 
the  aboriginal  Americans  were  none  others  but 
the  lost  tribes  of  Israel,  and  that  therefore  the 
same  Providence  guided  their  destiny.  Dr. 
Duffield,  referring  to  the  causes  which  led  to 
the  American  revolution,  that  it  was  brought 
about  by  reason  of  the  British  monarch's  deter- 
mination to  reduce  the  colonies  into  absolute 
vassalage,  carries  forward  the  analogy  in  these 
words :  "  Some  have  ascribed  this  extravagant 
conduct  to  the  same  spirit  of  jealousy  which 


130      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

once  influenced  the  councils  of  Egypt  against 
the  house  of  Joseph,  lest  waxing  too  powerful 
they  might  break  off  their  connection,  and 
pursue  a  separate  interest  of  their  own."  He 
calls  attention  to  the  providential  success  that 
crowned  the  American  cause,  that  in  eight 
short  but  eventful  years  the  thirteen  depend- 
ent colonies  had  become  thirteen  independent 
States.  He  explains  how  these  wonderful 
results  were  brought  about  in  a  summing  up 
that  consists  of  a  climax  of  Mosaic  analogies: 
"  'T  is  He,  the  Sovereign  Disposer  of  all  events, 
hath  wrought  for  us,  and  brought  the  whole  to 
pass.  It  was  He  who  led  his  Israel  of  old,  by 
the  pillar  of  fire  and  the  cloud,  through  their 
wilderness  journey,  wherein  they  also  had  their 
wanderings.  'T  was  He  who  raised  a  Joshua  to 
lead  the  tribes  of  Israel  in  the  field  of  battle ; 
raised  and  formed  a  Washington  to  lead  on  the 
troops  of  his  chosen  States.  'T  was  He  who 
in  Barak's  day  spread  the  spirit  of  war  in 
every  breast  to  shake  off  the  Canaanitish  yoke, 
and  inspired  thy  inhabitants,  O  America!  It 
was  He  who  raised  up  Cyrus  to  break  the 
Assyrian  force,  and  say:  'Let  Israel  be  free*; 
endued  the  monarch  of  France  with  an  angel's 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    1 3 1 

mind,  to  assert  and  secure  the  freedom  of  his 
United  American  States.  And  He  alone  who 
saith  to  the  proud  waves  of  the  sea :  '  Hitherto 
shall  ye  come,  but  no  farther.'  ' 

These  constant  references,  parallels,  and  anal- 
ogies to  the  children  of  Israel  in  their  struggle 
for  political  liberty  would  not  have  been  made 
again  and  again  if  they  did  not  meet  with  a 
responsive  echo  in  the  minds  and  sentiments 
of  the  large  audiences  to  whom  they  were 
addressed  throughout  the  thirteen  colonies. 
A  volume  would  not  contain  all  the  politico- 
theological  discourses  delivered  during  the 
decade  prior  to  the  restoration  of  peace,  wherein 
the  Hebrew  Commonwealth  was  held  up  as  a 
model,  and  its  history  as  a  guide  for  the  Amer- 
ican people  in  their  mighty  struggle  for  the 
blessings  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  I  have 
purposely  only  quoted  such  of  these  discourses 
as  were  delivered  by  ministers  who  were  eminent 
not  only  in  the  pulpit,  but  were  equally  dis- 
tinguished as  scholars,  as  patriots,  and  as  legis- 
lators. 

Thus  far  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth  has 
been  referred  to  as  the  model  and  guide  adopted 
in  the  sermons  and  discourses  of  our  patriotic 


132      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

divines ;  we  shall  now  trace  it  in  the  halls  of 
legislation,  and  in  the  writings  and  political 
pamphlets  published  during  the  period  prior  to 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  We  must 
not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  neither  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence  nor  the  success  of  our 
armies  in  the  struggle  decided  for  us  our  form 
of  government,  or  secured  for  posterity  the 
blessings  of  civil  and  religious  liberty, — the 
former  only  served  to  make  the  latter  possible. 
These  were  the  victories  of  the  statesmen,  the 
heroes,  and  of  the  patriots  of  the  pen.  The  ma- 
chinery of  government  under  the  articles  of 
confederation  was  so  defective,  weak,  and  in- 
effectual that  men,  wise  men,  true  and  loyal 
Americans,  aye,  many  in  the  army,  by  reason  of 
the  inability  of  the  government  to  pay  the 
half-starved  soldiers,  demanded  a  government 
that  would  revive  from  prostration  the  public 
credit  and  faith  of  the  nation,  that  would  pro- 
vide for  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  public 
debt ;  they  felt  the  need  of  a  government  with 
a  strong  arm,  an  elective  monarchy.  "  Now, 
just  as  day  was  dawning  and  independence 
about  to  be  secured,  every  thing  seems  to  tum- 
ble in  chaos  about  them,  threatening  a  state  of 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    1 33 

things  worse   than  their   former   condition   as 
colonists."  ' 

A  paper  embodying  the  views  of  the  army 
of  Washington  while  stationed  about  Newburg 
was  drawn  up  and  presented  to  their  comman- 
der-in-chief  by  Colonel  Nicola,  an  old  army 
officer,  held  in  high  esteem  by  Washington. 
This,  after  describing  the  perilous  state  of  feel- 
ing in  the  army  and  the  dangerous  aspect  of 
affairs,  and  showing  the  necessity,  now  that 
peace  was  assured,  of  settling  at  once  on  a  form 
of  government  which  should  be  a  strong  one, 
took  up  the  several  forms  of  government  in  the 
world,  and  summed  up  by  declaring  that  a  re- 
publican government  was  the  most  unstable  and 
insecure,  and  a  constitutional  monarchy  like 
that  of  England,  the  strongest  and  safest,  and, 
in  short,  offered  to  make  Washington  dictator. 
It  concluded  by  saying  :  "  Owing  to  the  preju- 
dices of  the  people  it  might  not  at  first  be 
prudent  to  assume  the  title  of  Royalty,  but  if 
all  other  things  were  adjusted,  we  believe  strong 
arguments  might  be  produced  for  admitting  the 
title  of  King."  Like  Gideon,  the  righteous 

*S«e  article  in  Harpers  Magazine,   Oct.,    1883,  by  J.  T. 
Headley. 


134      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

judge  of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  whom 
the  people  of  Israel  offered  to  make  king  in 
their  unbounded  gratitude,  and  in  admiration 
of  his  signal  service  in  delivering  them  from  the 
hands  of  their  most  powerful  enemies,  Wash- 
ington declined  the  crown. 

This  monarchical-party  spirit  was  so  strong, 
that  it  survived  even  after  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  until  the  election  of  Jefferson  as 
President,  who  refers  to  it  in  his  inaugural  ad- 
dress.1 No  one  arraigned  the  monarchical  ten- 
dencies with  a  more  vigorous  and  fearless  pen ; 
no  one  contributed  more  in  keeping  alive  the 
fires  of  liberty  during  those  times  that  tried 
men's  souls,  than  Thomas  Paine,  that  much 
maligned  and  abused  man,  who  has  been  accused 
of  every  crime  that  malice  could  invent.  Paine 

1  Jefferson  writes  as  follows  in  the  introduction  to  his 
"Anas":  "The  contests  of  that  day  were  contests  of  prin- 
ciple between  the  advocates  of  republican  and  those  of  kingly 
government."  See  also  letter  of  James  Monroe  (Dec.,  1816) 
to  Andrew  Jackson,  giving  his  recollections  of  the  monarchical 
tendencies  which  were  shown  by  certain  leaders  of  the  Federal 
party,  both  before  and  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 
He  says  :  "  Many  of  the  circumstances  on  which  my  opinion 
is  founded,  took  place  in  debate  and  in  society,  and  therefore 
find  no  place  in  any  public  document.  I  am  satisfied,  how- 
ever, that  sufficient  proof  exists,  founded  on  facts  and  opinions 
of  distinguished  individuals,  which  became  public,  to  justify 
that  which  I  had  formed.  ." 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    135 

was  the  friend  of  Franklin,  through  whose  pat- 
ronage he  came  to  America ;  he  was  the  editor 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Magazine,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the 
Continental  Congress;  he  was  beloved  and 
esteemed  by  Washington,  by  whom  he  was 
invited,  when  in  distressed  circumstances,  to 
share  the  hospitalities  of  his  home,  to  whom 
James  Monroe,  in  1794,  then  Minister  to 
Great  Britain,  wrote,  while  Paine  was  con- 
fined in  the  Luxemburg  as  prisoner,  by  the 
order  of  Robespierre,  for  espousing  the  cause 
of  liberty  in  France,  as  follows  :  "  You 
are  considered  by  them  (the  people  of  the 
United  States)  as  not  only  having  rendered 
important  services  in  our  own  revolution,  but 
as  being  on  a  more  extensive  scale  the  friend 
of  human  rights,  and  a  distinguished  and  able 
advocate  in  favor  of  public  liberty.  To  the 
welfare  of  Thomas  Paine  the  Americans  are 
not,  nor  can  they  be,  indifferent."  Washington 
says  of  the  author  of  "  Common  Sense,"  in  a 
letter  to  Joseph  Reed,  dated  January  31,  1776: 
"A  few  more  of  such  flaming  arguments  as 
were  exhibited  at  Falmouth  and  Norfolk,  added 
to  the  sound  doctrine  and  unanswerable  reason 


136      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

contained  in  the  pamphlet  'Common  Sense,' 
will  not  leave  numbers  at  a  loss  to  decide  on 
the  propriety  of  separation."  "  This  book " 
("  Common  Sense  "),  says  Dr.  Rush,  "  burst 
forth  from  the  press  with  an  effect  that  has 
been  rarely  produced  by  types  and  paper  in  any 
age  or  country."  The  former  part  of  this  re- 
markable production  is  devoted  to  the  subject 
of  "  Monarchy  and  Hereditary  Succession." 
The  argument  is  drawn  entirely  from  the  He- 
brew Commonwealth.  "  Monarchy  is  ranked  in 
Scripture,"  says  he,  "  as  one  of  the  sins  of  the 
Jews,  for  which  a  curse  in  reserve  is  denounced 
against  them."  "All  anti-monarchical  parts  of 
Scripture,  have  been  very  smoothly  glossed  over 
in  monarchical  governments,  but  they  undoubt- 
edly merit  the  attention  of  countries  which  have 
their  governments  yet  to  form."  And  then  he 
recites  the  history  of  the  entire  "  transaction," 
to  the  introduction  of  Saul  as  King.  "  But  where, 
say  some,"  are  his  words,  "  is  the  king  of  Amer- 
ica ?  I  '11  tell  you,  friend  :  he  reigns  above,  and 
doth  not  make  havoc  of  mankind  like  the  royal 
brute  of  Britain.  Yet  that  we  may  not  appear 
to  be  defective  even  in  earthly  honors,  let  a  day 
be  set  apart  for  proclaiming  the  charter ;  let  it 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    1 3  7 

be  brought  forth  placed  on  the  divine  law,  the 
word  of  God  ;  let  a  crown  be  placed  thereon,  by 
which  the  world  may  know  that,  so  far  as  we 
approve  of  monarchy,  in  America  the  law  is 
king." 

He  narrates  the  conduct  of  that  truly  great 
judge  of  Israel,  who  was  summoned  by  the 
voice  of  the  people  from  the  wheat  field  to 
assume  the  chief  magistracy  of  the  nation,  and 
to  deliver  his  people  from  their  strongest  and 
most  powerful  foes,  the  Midianites.  These  are 
his  words,  in  the  second  chapter  of  "  Common 
Sense" :  "  The  Jews,  elated  with  success,  and 
attributing  it  to  the  generalship  of  Gideon, 
proposed  making  him  king,  saying:  *  Rule 
thou  over  us,  thou  and  thy  son  and  thy  son's 
son/  Here  was  temptation  in  its  fullest  ex- 
tent ;  but  Gideon,  in  the  piety  of  his  soul,  re- 
plied :  '  I  will  not  rule  over  you,  neither 
shall  my  son  rule  over  you  ;  the  Lord 
shall  rule  over  you.'  Gideon  doth  not  decline 
the  honor,  but  denieth  the  right  to  give  it." 
Paine  then  continues  the  scriptural  narrative 
concerning  the  people  demanding  the  king, 
about  one  hundred  years  after  this  period, 
under  Samuel,  and  quoting  in  full  Samuel's 


138      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

admonitions,  concludes  in  these  words:  "  These 
portions  of  the  Scripture  are  direct  and  posi- 
tive ;  they  admit  of  no  equivocal  construction. 
That  the  Almighty  hath  here  entered  his  pro- 
test against  monarchical  government  is  true, 
or  the  Scriptures  are  false." 

Unfortunately,  we  have  in  most  instances 
only  skeleton  reports  of  proceedings  and  de- 
bates of  the  Federal  and  State  conventions  on 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  Doubtless 
the  model  of  the  ancient  commonwealth,  its 
history  and  lessons,  were  frequently  employed 
by  the  distinguished  representatives ;  the  mea- 
greness  of  the  records  leaves  this  to  conjecture 
only.  In  the  Legislatures  of  the  various  States 
before  whom  the  Constitution  came  for  adop- 
tion, the  delegates  again  and  again  referred  to 
this  original  model  of  popular  government.  In 
New  York,  for  instance,  Robert  R.  Livingston, 
the  Chancellor  of  the  State,  refers  to  it1;  so 
also  John  Lansing,2  who,  in  his  speech  urging 
its  adoption,  says :  "  Sir,  the  instances  from  the 
history  of  the  Jewish  Theocracy  evince  that 
there  are  certain  situations  in  communities 

1  Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  II.,  page  210. 
3  Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  II.,  page  218. 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    1 39 

which  will  unavoidably  lead  to  results  similar 
to  those  we  experience.  The  Israelites  were 
unsuccessful  in  war ;  they  were  sometimes  de- 
feated by  their  enemies.  Instead  of  reflecting 
that  these  calamities  were  occasioned  by  their 
sins,  they  sought  relief  in  the  appointment  of  a 
king,  in  imitation  of  their  neighbors."  So  also 
the  Hon.  Mr.  John  Smith,1  who  quotes  in  full 
the  admonition  of  Samuel  to  the  children  of 
Israel,  describing  the  manner  in  which  a  king 
would  rule  over  them.  In  short,  again  and 
again,  in  and  out  of  our  halls  of  legislation,  was 
the  history  of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth  re- 
ferred to,  narrated,  rehearsed,  and  analogies 
drawn  therefrom  by  the  advocates  of  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government  in  answer  to  those 
who  favored  monarchy,  so  that  the  admonitions 
of  Samuel  were  as  familiar  to  the  people  of 
America  as  the  words  of  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  it  is  not  at  all 
surprising  that  the  committee,  which  was  ap- 
pointed on  the  same  day  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  was  adopted,  consisting  of  Dr. 
Franklin,  Mr.  Adams,  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  to 
prepare  a  device  for  a  seal  for  the  United 

1  Elliot's  Debates,  Vol.  II.,  pages  225  and  226. 


140      The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

States,  should,  as  they  did,  have  proposed  as 
such  device,  Pharaoh  sitting  in  an  open  chariot, 
a  crown  on  his  head  and  a  sword  in  his  hand, 
passing  through  the  dividing  waters  of  the  Red 
Sea  in  pursuit  of  the  Israelites ;  with  rays  from 
a  pillar  of  fire  beaming  on  Moses,  who  is  repre- 
sented as  standing  on  the  shore  extending  his 
hand  over  the  sea,  causes  it  to  overwhelm 
Pharaoh  ;  and  underneath,  the  motto  :  "  Rebel- 
lion to  tyrants  is  obedience  to  God." 

Dr.  David  Tappan,  who,  after  the  declaration 
of  peace,  was  chosen  professor  at  Harvard  Col- 
lege, in  the  course  of  his  lectures  on  the  "  Jew- 
ish Antiquities,"  says  that  the  demand  of  the 
children  of  Israel  to  Samuel,  to  set  a  king  over 
them,  was  exceedingly  displeasing  to  Samuel, 
and  when  he  referred  the  matter  to  God,  the 
Most  High  declared  that  by  this  act  they  had 
rejected  him  ;  that  he  should  not  reign  over 
them.  "  From  hence  some  writers  have  in- 
ferred that  monarchy  is  in  its  very  nature 
criminal;  that  it  impiously  invades  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  Supreme  Ruler,  as  well  as  the 
equal  rights  of  man."  "  This  inference,"  says 

1  A  copy  of  the  report  recommending  the  above  device  is 
preserved  among  the  papers  of  the  Continental  Congress  in  the 
State  Department  in  Washington.  For  Lossing's  design  of 
the  seal,  see  frontispiece. 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.    141 

the  learned  professor,  "  was  plausibly  enforced 
on  the  American  people,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  year  1776,  by  a  very  popular  but  desultory 
writer  (doubtless  meaning  Thomas  Paine),  and 
this  sentiment,  with  others  equally  well  timed, 
operated,  with  the  swiftness  and  force  of  the 
electric  fluid,  in  preparing  the  country  for  a 
formal  separation  from  the  British  monarch." 

Many  more  authorities  can  be  adduced 
upon  the  same  subject,  but  they  would  only 
be  cumulative.  Through  more  than  a  cen- 
tury and  a  half  the  Puritan  ministers  never 
tired  of  dwelling  upon  the  trials,  sufferings, 
and  fortitude  of  the  children  of  Israel  during 
their  long  and  weary  wanderings  from  the  land 
of  their  oppressors  until  the  organization  of 
popular  government  on  the  banks  of  the  Jor- 
dan. To  what  extent  these  teachings  and 
preachings  served  as  an  inspiring  incentive  to 
the  American  people  in  their  heroic  struggle 
for  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  to  what  de- 
gree the  oft-quoted  warnings  of  the  last  Judge 
of  Israel,  followed  by  the  corroborating  revela- 
tions of  scriptural  history,  supplied  the  argu- 
ment that  battered  down  the  enslaving  doctrine 
of  "  Divine  Right  of  Kings,"  and  its  corol- 


142     The  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 

laries,  "  Unlimited  Submission,"  and  "  Non- 
Resistance,"  we  leave  for  the  reader  to  draw 
his  own  conclusion. 

We  neither  claim  nor  wish  to  be  understood 
as  inferring  that  the  structural  parts  of  our 
form  of  government  were  derived  from  what 
was  believed  to  be  the  components  of  the  He- 
brew Commonwealth,  but  only  that  this 
scriptural  model  of  government,  which  was 
democratic,  as  distinguished  from  kingly  rule, 
had  a  deep  influence  upon  the  founders  of  our 
government  and  prepared  the  minds  of  the 
people,  especially  in  the  New  England  colo- 
nies, so  that  they  not  only  longed  for,  but 
would  not  content  themselves  with  any  other 
form  of  government  than  that  form  which  had 
the  divine  sanction,  the  government  of  the 
Hebrews  under  the  Judges. 

Looking  backward  over  a  period  of  nearly 
three  hundred  years  it  may  be  difficult  for  us 
in  this  age  to  understand  why  the  early  Puri- 
tans should  have  gone  back  nearly  three  thou- 
sand years  for  their  form  of  government,  but 
we  must  not  forget  the  intense  religious  spirit 
of  Puritanism,  which  was  a  Protestant  renais- 
sance of  the  Old  Testament  and  a  reversion  to 


The  Government  of  the  United  States.  143 

biblical  precedents  for  the  regulation  of  the 
minutest  details  of  daily  life.  They  were  not 
content  even  to  administer  justice  by  the  civil 
or  the  common  law,  but  regulated  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes  by  the  Pentateuch,  and  in 
framing  their  criminal  code  every  section  cited 
the  biblical  chapter  and  verse. 

In  the  study  of  the  history  of  the  develop- 
ment of  our  form  of  government,  to  leave  out 
of  account  the  ecclesiastical  side,  freedom  from 
Lords-bishop  as  well  as  from  Lords-temporal, 
is  to  overlook  not  only  important  but  essential 
elements.  In  the  resolution  which  led  to  the 
first  meeting  of  the  Continental  Congress, 
passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
Massachusetts  Bay  on  June  17,  1774,  appoint- 
ing Samuel  and  John  Adams,  Thomas  Cush- 
ing,  Robert  Treat  Paine,  and  James  Bowdoin 
a  committee  to  meet  delegates  and  representa- 
tives from  the  other  colonies  at  a  congress  to 
be  held  in  Philadelphia  the  following  Septem- 
ber, the  reasons  recited  for  such  action  were 
"  to  deliberate  and  determine  upon  wise  and 
proper  measures,  to  be  by  them  recommended 
to  all  the  Colonies  for  the  Recovery  and  Estab- 
lishment of  their  Just  Rights  and  Liberties 


144  Hebrew  Commonwealth  and  the  U.  S. 

Civil  and  Religious."1  In  devising  the  plan 
of  our  government,  the  founders  not  only  drew 
their  inspiration  from  first  sources  but  reverted 
to  first  principles,  the  "  unalienable  rights" 
of  man.  They  builded  well  on  a  broad  and 
lasting  foundation,  and  to  their  wisdom  and 
foresight  we  owe  the  blessings  of  liberty  we 
enjoy.  Freedom  of  person,  freedom  of  con- 
science, and  a  republican  form  of  government, 
constitute  the  creed  of  our  political  faith,  and 
they  alone  can  insure  for  us  and  our  posterity 
liberty,  happiness,  and  stability. 

1  MSS.  resolution  signed  by  Samuel  Adams,  clerk,  in  pos- 
session of  the  author. 


NOTES. 

Page  73.  For  ten  years  after  the  settlement  of 
the  Bay  Colony,  the  clergy  and  their  followers 
stubbornly  refused  to  recognize  the  common  law 
or  to  enact  a  code,  and  when  at  length,  in  1641 
further  resistance  to  the  demands  of  the  freemen 
was  impossible,  the  Rev.  Nathaniel  Ward  drew  up 
"/The  Body  of  Liberties,"  which  contained  a  crim- 
inal code  copied  almost  verbatim  from  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  Pentateuch  was  also  enacted  as  a 
whole  when  the  express  laws  did  not  cover  the 
case.—"  Mass.  Hist.  Collection,"  3d  Series,  VIII., 
216. 

Page  101.  In  this  outline  of  the  Hebrew  Com- 
monwealth we  are  chiefly  guided  by  the  belief  and 
views  of  the  early  founders  of  our  government, 
who  were  little  troubled  by  critical  doubts  ;  it  is 
their  interpretations  which  concern  us  here. 

Page  121.  See  Election  Sermon  by  Dr.  Lang- 
don  delivered  at  Concord  before  the  General 
Court,  June  5,  1788,  entitled,  "The  Republic  of 
the  Israelites  an  Example  to  the  American  States." 
To  which  the  eminent  divine  attached  a  note,  that 
soon  after  this  sermon  was  delivered  the  Conven- 
tion of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  met  (June 
2ist)  and  adopted  the  United  States  Constitution, 
thus  making  the  requisite  two-thirds,  the  number  of 
States  necessary  for  its  adoption.  P.  33. 
145 


INDEX. 


ADAMS,  C.  F.,  note  by,  84 

Adams,  John,  inaugural  ad- 
dress of,  9  ;  account  of  Otis, 
26 ;  defence  of  rioters,  35  ; 
quoted,  54,  83,  91  ;  member 
of  committee,  57 

Adams,  Samuel,  president  of 
committee,  40 

American  colonies  prior  to 
Revolution,  I  ;  monarchical 
character  of,  3  ;  outline  of 
governments  of,  3  ;  Congress 
of,  8 ;  address  to  king  in 
1774,  1 8  ;  desire  for  republic 
of  slow  growth,  27 

American  colonists,  class  of,  45 

American  compact,  paper  on, 
21 

Aristotle,  quoted,  85 


BAIRD,  ROBERT,  quoted,  63 
Baltimore,  Lord,  proprietor  of 

Md.,  51 
Barre  espouses  American  cause, 

28 
Bernard,    Governor   of    Mass., 

33  ;  memorial  to  the  king,  33 
Bishops,  dread  of,  in  America, 


56  ;    restored 
Lords,  96 


to    House    of 


Bossuet  and  Louis  XIV.,  94 

Boston,  British  troops  sent  to, 
33  ;  massacre  in,  34 ;  Port 
Bill  passed,  40,  reception  of, 
in  Boston,  40  ;  tea  party,  36 ; 
Port  Bill,  36,  40;  Evening 
Post,  quoted,  41  ;  alarmed 
concerning  episcopacy,  38 

Boucher,  Jonathan,  on  Angli- 
can Church,  55  :  on  Non- 
Resistance,  97 

British  troops  sent  to  Boston,  33 

CALVERT,  quoted,  109 

Camden,  Lord,  espouses  Ameri- 
can cause,  28 

Canadian  bounderies,  30,  37 

Carthage  not  a  pure  democ- 
racy, 85 

Catholic   Church,  property  of, 

37 

Chamberlain's  address  on 
Adams,  62 

Charles  I.,  execution  of,  94 

Charles  II.,  95 

Chatham,  Lord,  quoted,  92 

Christianity,  establishment,  88  ; 
hindrance  to  civil  liberty,  88 

Church  of  England  in  Vir- 
ginia, 52 


147 


148 


Index. 


Church  and  State,  under  Charles 
I.,  44  ;  in  Virginia  and  New 
England,  61,  91  ;  union  dis- 
solved, 64 

Civil  liberty  did  not  originate 
in  Greece,  101 

Coddington,  Gov.  of  Rhode 
Island,  50 

Colonies  all  true  to  respective 
founders,  23 

"  Committee  of  Correspond- 
ence," 119 

Congress  of  colonial  delegates, 
8  ;  resolution  of,  in  '76,  9 

Connecticut  and  Mass.,  last 
colonies  to  grant  religious 
liberty,  64 

Connecticut  Congregationalists 
in,  65 

Constitution  of  U.  S.  and  re- 
ligion, 69 

Conway  espouses  American 
cause,  28 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  47 

Gushing,  57 

DEBERDT,  agent  for  Mass.,  57 
Declaration  of    Independence, 

10-13,  22 

Delaware  Assembly  in  1775,  7 
Dickinson,  6,  8 
Divine  right  of  kings,  92,  98  ; 

sanctioned     by     Bible,    92  ; 

sanctioned  by  Church,    94  ; 

and  unlimited  submission,  99 
Duffield,    Geo.,    sermons     of, 

122,  128 


EAST  INDIA  COMPANY,  35 

Election  sermons  in  New  Eng- 
land, 77,  118 

Encroachments  of  king,  re- 
sisted, 99 

England,  Protestantism  in,  90 

English  and  American  revolu- 
tions, 12 

English  afraid  of  Parlia- 
ment, 83  ;  commonwealth  a 
failure,  82  ;  a  commercial 
nation,  32 

Episcopalians  in  America,  96, 
98 

Established  Church,  assaults  on, 
62  ;  plan  of,  in  colonies,  64 

Europe,  disturbances  in,  70 

FANEUIL  HALL,  meeting  in,  40 
Filmer,  Sir  Robert,  94,  99 
Foord,  John,  quoted,  48 
Franklin,      Ben.,      agent    for 

Penna.,  29 
Franklin,  Gov.  of  New  Jersey,  6 

GAGE,  General,  Gov.  of  Mass., 
36 

General  Assembly,  34 

General  Congress,  proposition 
for,  40 

Genesis  of  the  Republic,  70 

George  III.,  18,  24,  32,  98 

Georgia,  Methodists  in,  65 

Gladstone,  quoted,  91 

Governments  of  colonies — pro- 
vincial, proprietary,  and 
charter,  3 


Index. 


149 


Grahame,  Hist,  of  U.S.,  quoted, 

53 
Greek    and    Roman  republics, 

101 
Grenville      introduces     Stamp 

Act,  27 
Grotius,  no 

HANCOCK,  JOHN,  57,  120 

Hawley,  Major,  57 

Hebrews  and  Puritans,  resem- 
blance between,  71 

Hebrew  Commonwealth  and 
United  States,  101,  118,  not 
purely  religious,  108,  109  ; 
council  of,  70,  no  ;  congre- 
gation, 112;  republic,  decline 
of,  1 1 6,  liberty  of,  117 

Henry  VIII.,  motives  of,  90 

Henry,  Patrick,  against  the 
parsons,  60  ;  speech  of,  61 

Hobbes,  99 

Holland,  pilgrims  in,  43  ;  pre- 
carious state  of,  83 

Howard,  Simeon,  sermon  of,  124 

Hutchinson,  Gov.  of  R.  I.,  34  ; 
refuses  to  dismiss  troops,  34 

INGLIS,  Charles,  59 
Israelites,  organization  of,  102  ; 
departure  from  Egypt,  104 

JAHN,  no 

James  I . ,  reign  of  transition,  43 ; 

absolutism  of,  94 
Jamestown,  52 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  22,  40,  54, 

63,  66,  134 


Jethro,  advice  to  Moses,  104 
Jewish  antiquities,  140 
Judges  of  Israel,  107 

KINGS,  right  of,  in  the  various 
colonies,  4  ;  divine  right  of, 
n,  17  ;  prayers  for,  to  be 
omitted,  14 

Knowledge,  lack  of  diffusion 
of,  in  colonies,  77 

LANGDON,  SAMUEL,  sermon  of, 

120 

Lansing,  John,  quoted,  138 
Laud,  42,  44 
Lecky,  quoted,  19 
Liberty  in  Virginia  and  Mass., 

62 
Livingston,  Robt.  R.,  quoted 

138 

Locke,  John,  47,  99 
Locke,  Samuel,  120 

MARYLAND  ASSEMBLY  in  1775, 

7  ;  Catholics  in,  65 
Massachusetts    Assembly,    33, 
57  ;  religious  intolerance  in, 
52  ;  Congress  thanks  minis- 
ters, 78 

Mather,  Cotton,  sermon  of,  74 
Mnthews,  J.  M.,  quoted,  in 
Maury,  payment  to,  test  case,  60 
Mayhew,  Jonathan,  sermon  of, 

75  ;  quoted,  96,  118 
Michaelis,  quoted,  no,  112 
Milton,  John,  47 
"  Molasses  Act,"  25,  35 
Monarchy  and  the  Church,  88 


Index. 


Montesquieu,  opinion  of  repub- 
lics, 22,  82 

Mosaic  Laws,  adopted  in  New 
England,  72  ;  unfitness  for, 
New  England,  72 

Moses,  education  of,  103  ;  gov- 
ernment of,  105-106 

Motley,  J.  L.,  quoted,  89 

Munroe,  James,  quoted.  134 

NEW  ENGLAND,  ministers  of, 
interest  in  politics,  74  ;  Bible 
in,  70;  Confederation,  71 

New  Jersey,  Assembly  of,  6  ; 
Protestants  in,  65 

Newport,  50 

New  Testament,  influence  of,  19 

New  York,  Church  of  England 
in,  65  ;  Gazette,  21  ;  Provin- 
cial Congress  in  1775,  7 

Nicola,  Col.,  paper  by,  133 

Non-Resistance,  doctrine  of,  96 

North  Carolina,  religious  sects 
in,  65 

North,  Lord,  moves  Boston 
Port  Bill,  40 

Nova  Scotia,  boundaries  of,  30 

OLD  TESTAMENT,  influence  of, 

18 
Otis,  James,  26,  37,  119 

PAINE,  ROBERT  T.,  118 

Paine,  Thomas,  134 

Palfrey,    Hist,   of   New   Eng., 

quoted,  45. 
Parliament,   encroachments  of, 


31  ;  acts  by,  36  ;  reasons  for 
favoring  Catholics,  38  ;  atti- 
tude towards  Canada,  39 ; 
consideration  of  tea  riots, 
39 

Pennsylvania,  Assembly  in 
J775.  6  I  Quakers  in,  65 

Philadelphia,  meeting  in,  35 

Pitkin,  History  of  U.S.,  quoted, 
24,  72 

Pitt  espouses  American  cause, 
28 

Political  development,  15 

Political  Register,  cartoon  in, 
58 

Pope,  power  of  the,  89 

Portsmouth,  50 

Presbyterians  favored  revolu- 
tion, 62 

Price,  Dr.,  16,  31 

Protestant  majority  in  America, 
68 

Protestantism  in  England,  90 

Providence,  49 

Puritans  and  Pilgrims,  differ- 
ence between,  42 

Puritans,  preference  for  Old 
Testament,  72 

QUEBEC  ACT,  37 
Quincey,  Josiah,  35 

RANDOLPH,  JOHN,  22 

Religious  causes  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, 42 

Religious  liberty  in  Md.  and 
R.  L,  51 


Index. 


Republic  not  favored  by  colo- 
nies, 80  ;  of  U.  S.,  heir  to 
Hebrew  Commonwealth,  141 

Republics,  defects  of  ancient 
and  modern,  81 

Revolutions  in  different  lauds, 
15  ;  political  causes  of,  21 

Rhode  Island,  troubles  in,  33  ; 
government  imitation  of  the 
Jews,  50  ;  Baptists  in,  65 

Rush,  Dr.,  quoted,  136 

Russell,  Lord  William,  95 

SANHEDRIM,  m 

Sects  in  different  colonies,  65 

Selden,  no 

Sherlock,    Bishop   of    London, 

60,  61 
Sidney,    Algernon,    Discourses 

on  Government,  47,  99,  no, 

H3 

Smith,  John,  quoted,  139 
Society    for     Propagating     the 

Gospel,  59 

South  Carolina,  sects  in,  65 
Stamp  Act,  5,  27,  28,  32,  119 
Stiles,  Ezra,  quoted,  42,  125 
Story,  Judge,  65 
Sugar  Act,  35 
Superstition  in  politics,  80 

TAPPAN,  DAVID,  quoted,  140 
"  Taxation  without  Representa- 
tion," first  uttered,  26 


Taxation,  resolutions  against,  35 
Tax  on  tea,  32,  35 
Thatcher,  Oxenbridge,  26 
Theocracy  in  New  England,  72 
Tories,  5,  40,  94 
Tudor,  William,  quoted,  59 

U.  S.  TREATY  with  Tripoli,  68 
U.  S.  Republic  planned  on  He- 
brew model,  79 
U.  S.  seal,  device  for,  139 

VANE,  HENRY,  47 

Virginia,  appeal  to  Parliament  in 
1764,  5  ;  convention,  resolu- 
tions of,  in  '76,  14,  resolutions 
of,  in  1774,  40  ;  religious  in- 
tolerance in,  52  ;  Anglicans 
absolute  in,  55  ;  loyalty  of, 
52  ;  compulsory  baptism  in, 
60  ;  affairs  in,  61  ;  Dissenters 
in,  63  ;  Cavaliers  in,  65 

WARREN,  JOSEPH,  40 
Washington,  quoted,  135 
West,  Samuel,  sermon  of,  122 
Winthrop,  leader  of  Puritans,  42 
Winthrop,  Robt.  C.,  centennial 

oration  of,  9 
Whigs,  5,  40 
William  III.,  absolutism  of ,  17  ; 

retrogression  of,  17 
Williams,  Roger,  47 


Economics. 


Hadley's  Economics. 

An  Account  of  the  Relations  between  Private  Property 
and  Public  Welfare.  By  ARTHUR  TWINING  HAD- 
LEY,  Professor  of  Political  Economy,  in  Yale  Uni- 
versity. 8°,  $2.50  net. 

The  work  is  now  used  in  classes  in  Yale,  Princeton,  Harvard,  Amherst,  Dart- 
mouth, Bowdoin,  Vnnderbilt,  Bucknell,  Bates,  Leland  Stanford,  University  of 
Oregon,  University  of  California,  etc. 

"The  author  has  done  his  work  splendidly.  He  is  clear,  precise,  and 
thorough.  .  .  .  No  other  book  has  given  an  equally  compact  and  intelligent 
interpretation." — American  Journal  of  Sociology. 

The  Bargain  Theory  of  Wages. 

By  JOHN  DAVIDSON,  M.A.,  D  Phil.  (Edin.),  Professor  of 
Political  Economy  in  the  University  of  New  Bruns- 
wick. i2mo,  $1.50. 

A  Critical  Development  from  the  Historic  Theories,  together  with  an  examin- 
ation of  Certain  Wages  Factors :  the  Mobility  of  Labor,  Trades  Unionism,  and 
the  Methods  of  Industrial  Remuneration. 

"  This  able  volume  is  the  most  satisfactory  work  on  Distribution  that  has  yet 
appeared.  Prof.  Davidson's  theory  appeals  to  our^  common  sense  as  in  harmony 
with  actual  conditions,  and  he  has  worked  it  out  with  convincing  logic  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principles  of  economic  science  We  recommend  it  all  students  of 
economics  as  the  most  important  contribution  to  the  science  of  Political  Economy 
that  has  recently  appeared." — Interior. 

Sociology. 

A  Treatise.  By  JOHN  BASCOM,  author  of  "^Esthetics," 
"  Comparative  Psychology,"  etc.  12°,  $1.50. 

"  Gives  a  wholesome  and  inspiring  word  on  all  the  living  social  questions  of 
the  day ;  and  its  suggestions  as  to  how  the  social  life  of  man  may  be  made  purer 
and  truer  are  rich  with  the  finer  wisdom  of  the  time.  The  author  is  always 
liberal  in  spirit,  generous  in  his  sympathies,  and  wise  in  his  knowledge."— Critic. 

A  General  Freight  and  Passenger  Post. 

A  Practical  Solution  of  the  Railroad  Problem.  By 
JAMES  L.  COWLES.  Third  revised  edition,  with  ad- 
ditional material.  12°,  cloth,  $1.25  ;  paper,  5octs. 

u  The  book  giYes  the  best  account  which  has  thus  far  been  given  in  English  of 
the  movement  for  a  reform  in  our  freight  and  passenger-tarin  policy,  and  the 
best  arguments  in  favor  of  such  reform.1'— EDMUND  J.  JAMES,  in  the  Annalt  of 
Political  and  Social  Science. 

"  The  book  treats  in  a  very  interesting  and  somewhat  novel  way  of  an  ex- 
tremely difficult  subject  and  is  well  worth  careful  reading  by  all  students  of 
the  transportation  question."  —  From  letter  of  EDW.  A.  MOSELEY,  Secretary  of 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  Washington,  D.C. 


Q.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  New  York  &  London. 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS. 


AMERICA  AND  EUROPE.     A  Study  of  International  Relations. 
I. — THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN:  THEIR  TRUE 
GOVERNMENTAL  AND  COMMERCIAL  RELATIONS.     By  DAVID 
A.  WELLS. 
II. — THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE.      By  EDWARD  J.   PHELPS,  late 

Minister  to  Great  Britain. 

III. — ARBITRATION    IN    INTERNATIONAL    DISPUTES.       By   CARL 
SCHURZ. 

(No.  87  in  the  "  Questions  of  the  Day  "  Series.) 
Together,  i  vol.  8vo,  75  cents. 
"  This  is  an  extremely  interesting  book,  a  book  which  should  make  for  peace." 

COMPARATIVE  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW.  An  Analysis  of 
the  Administrative  System,  National  and  Local,  of  the  United  States, 
England,  France,  and  Germany.  By  FRANK  J.  GOODNOW,  Professor  of 
Administrative  Law  in  the  University  Faculty  of  Political  Science, 
Columbia  College  in  the  City  of  New  York.  Two  volumes,  8vo 
(each  complete  in  itself,  with  index),  price  per  volume,  $2.50. 
Volume  I. — ORGANIZATION.  Volume  II. — LEGAL  RELATIONS. 

44  A  work  of  great  learning  and  profound  research  .  .  .  remarkable  alike  for  an- 
alytical power  and  lucidity  of  method  .  .  .  unique  and  of  permanent  excellence.— 
New  York  Tribune. 

OUTLINES  OP  ROMAN  LAW.  Comprising  its  Historical  Growth 
and  General  Principles.  By  WILLIAM  C.  MOREY,  Ph.D.  i2mo,  $1.75 

44  The  work  possesses  more  than  ordinary  interest,  for  it  marks  an  epoch  in  American 
legal  literature." — Albany  Law  Journal. 

41  The  whole  work  is  executed  with  care  and  accuracy,  and  shows  a  wide  knowledge  of 
modern  scholarship." — Boston  Advertiser. 

THE    FOREIGN    POLICY    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN.      By 

MONTAGUE  BURROWS,  Professor  of  Modern   History,  University  of 
Oxford.     8vo,  $3.00. 

THE     HISTORICAL     DEVELOPMENT     OF     MODERN 
EUROPE.     From  the  Congress  of  Vienna  to  the  Present  Time.     By 
CHARLES  M.  ANDREWS,  Associate  Professor  of  History  in  Bryn  Mawr 
College.     To  be  completed  in  two  volumes.     Sold  separately.     With 
maps.     8vo,  gilt  tops,  per  volume,  $2.50. 
Part  I. — FROM  1815-1850. 
Part  II. — FROM  1850  TO  THE  PRESENT  TIME. 

THE  NICARAGUA  CANAL  AND  THE  MONROE  DOC- 
TRINE.  A  Political  History  of  the  Various  Projects  of  Interoceanic 
Transit  across  the  American  Isthmus,  with  Special  Reference  to  the 
Nicaragua  Canal,  and  the  Attitude  of  the  United  States  Government 
Thereto.  By  LINDLEY  M.  KEASBEY,  Associate  Professor  of  Political 
Science,  Bryn  Mawr  College.  With  maps.  8vo,  $3.50. 

INTERNATIONAL  LAW.  A  simple  statement  of  its  Principles. 
By  HERBERT  WOLCOTT  Bo  WEN,  United  States  Consul-General  at 
Barcelona,  Spain.  I2mo,  $1.25. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON. 


AMERICAN  HISTORY. 


THE  SPHERE  OF  THE  STATE  ;  OR,  THE 
PEOPLE  AS  A  BODY  POLITIC. 

With  Special  Consideration  of  Certain  Present  Problems.  By 
Frank  Sargent  Hoffman,  A.M.,  Professor  of  Philosophy, 
Union  College.  12° $i  50 

THE  WINNING  OF  THE  WEST. 

By  Theodore  Roosevelt.  Author  of  "The  Naval  War  of 
1812,"  "  Hunting  Trips  of  a  Ranchman,"  "  The  Wilder- 
ness Hunter,"  etc.  With  maps.  4  vols.,  octavo,  gilt  top, 
each  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  $2  50 

Vol.  I.  From  the  Alleghanies  to  the  Mississippi,  1769-1776. 

Vol.  II.   From  the  Alleghanies  to  the  Mississippi,  1777-1783. 

Vol.  III.  The  Founding  of  the  Trans-Alleghany  Common- 
wealths, 1784-1790. 

Vol.  IV.  Louisiana  and  the  Northwest,  1791-1809. 

THE  STORY  OF  THE  CIVIL  WAR. 

A  Concise  Account  of  the  War  in  the  United  States  of  Amer* 
ica  between  1861  and  1865.  By  John  Codman  Ropes, 
Member  of  the  Mass.  Historical  Society,  The  Military 
Historical  Society  of  Massachusetts,  Fellow  of  the  Royal 
Historical  Society.  Author  of  "  The  First  Napoleon," 
"  The  Campaign  of  Waterloo,"  etc.  To  be  complete  in 
four  parts,  printed  in  four  octavo  volumes,  with  compre- 
hensive maps  and  battle  plans.  Each  part  will  be  com- 
plete in  itself  and  will  be  sold  separately. 
Part  I.  Narrative  of  Events  to  the  opening  of  the  Campaign 
of  1862.  With  5  maps.  8°  .  .  .  .  $i  50 
Part  II. — The  Campaigns  of  1862.  With  13  maps. 

8° $2  50 

THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY  AND 

POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF 

THE  UNITED  STATES. 

An  Analytical  Study.     By  Simon  Sterne  (of  the  New  York 
Bar.)  Fourth  edition,  revised,  with  additions.     12°,  $i  25 

THE  TARIFF  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES,    1789-1888. 

By  Prof.  F.  W.  Taussig.  Comprising  the  material  contained 
in  "  Protection  to  Young  Industries  "  and  "  History  of  the 
Present  Tariff,"  together  with  the  revisions  and  additions 
needed  to  complete  the  narrative  down  to  1897.  Fourth 
Edition,  revised.  12° $i  25 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

NEW  YORK  LONDON 


WORKS  ON  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  FIFTH  ARMY  CORPS,  1861-1865. 

By  WILLIAM  H.  POWELL,  Lieutenant-Colonel  nth  Infantry,  U.  S.  A. 
Comprising  a  full  and  complete  account  of  the  movements  and  opera- 
tions of  the  Corps  from  the  organization  of  the  first  division  to  the  close 
of  the  war,  together  with  a  description  of  the  battles  in  which  it  was 
engaged.  With  38  maps  and  plans,  and  9  portraits.  Large  8°,  $7  50 
Half  russia 10  oo 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  NINETEENTH  ARMY  CORPS. 

By  RICHARD   B.  IRWIN,  formerly  Lieutenant-Colonel  of  Volunteers 
and  Assistant  Adjutant-General  of  the  Corps  and  of  the  Department 
of  the  Gulf.     With  portraits  and  maps,  8vo,          .        .        .        $4  50 
44  The  maps  and  plans  with  which  the  book  is  illustrated  are  excellent  and  serve  to 
render  the  complex  details  of  military  manoeuvres  intelligible.    " 


the  volume  wit 


lex  details  of  military  manoeuvres  intelligible.  The  appendix  supplements 
rosters,  lists  of  losses  in  battle,  and  the  official  register  of  the 4  Forlorn  Hone ' 
at  Port  Hudson.  Nothing  is  lacking  to  make  this  volume  a  permanent  and  authoritative 
record  of  the  military  achievements  of  the  Nineteenth  Army  Corps.  As  such  it  is  a  val- 
uable addition  to  the  History  of  the  American  civil  conflict." — N.  Y.  Tribune. 

THE  STORY  OF  A  CAVALRY  REGIMENT.  By  WILLIAM 
FORSE  SCOTT,  late  Adjutant.  The  Career  of  the  Fourth  Iowa  Veteran 
Volunteers.  From  Kansas  to  Georgia,  1861-65.  With  maps  and 
battle  plans,  gilt  top,  8vo, $3  50 

*4The  author  has  given  an  account  not  only  of  the  operations  of  the  regiment  itself, 
but  also  a  general  and  brief  account  of  each  campaign  and  action  in  which  it  was  engaged, 
and  of  the  movements  of  the  associated  corps,  so  that  the  reader  may  see,  not  merely  what 
the  regiment  did,  but  how  and  why  it  was  done.  Many  interesting  details  are  found  in 
this  volume  which  add  greatly  to  its  value,  and  which  are  not  usually  found  in  such  his- 
tories."—Richmond  Times. 

AMERICAN  WAR  BALLADS.  Edited  by  GEORGE  GARY  EGOLES- 
TON.  Comprising  a  selection  of  the  most  noteworthy  ballad  poetry 
produced  during  the  Colonial  Period,  the  Indian  Wars,  the  Revolution, 
the  War  of  1812-14,  the  Mexican  War,  and  the  Civil  War.  The  latter 
division  includes  the  productions  of  poets  on  both  sides  of  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line.  Very  fully  illustrated  from  original  designs. 
Two  vols.  in  one.  i6mo  .......  $i  50 

41  He  has  gone  about  it  in  a  wisely  comprehensive  spirit,  and  in  his  book  will  be  found 
most  of  the  actual  songs,  whether  good  or  bad,  that  were  popular  during  the  war,  as  well 
as  the  poems  and  ballads  that  best  deserve  preservation  because  of  their  literary  character." 
—Philadelphia  Times. 

A  REBEL'S  RECOLLECTIONS.  By  GEORGE  GARY  EGGLESTON, 
late  of  the  Confederate  Army.  i6mo  .  .  .  .  .  $i  oo 

44  The  author  deserves  the  thanks  of  all  true  Americans.  .  .  .  His  sketches  are 
models  of  characterization." — Philadelphia  Bulletin. 

RECOLLECTIONS  OF  A  PRIVATE  SOLDIER  In  the  army  of 
the  Potomac.  By  FRANK  WILKESON.  i6mo  .  .  .  $i  oo 

44  Represents  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  enlisted  men  very  accurately,  and  on  that 
account  the  book  has  unusual  value.  The  personality  of  the  author  gives  it  a  flavor 
which  adds  to  its  interest." — Boston  Evening  Transcript. 

THE  CIVIL  WAR  ON  THE  BORDER.  By  WILEY  BRITTON, 
formerly  Regimental  Commissary  6th  Kansas  Cavalary.  A  Narrative 
of  Military  Operations  in  Missouri,  Kansas,  Arkansas,  and  the  Indian 
Territory.  Vol.  I.  covering  the  operations  of  1861-1862.  With  maps 
and  battle  plans,  and  portraits.  Second  edition,  8vo  •  .  $2  50 
Vol.  II.  covering  the  operations  of  1863-65,  8vo.  .  .  3  50 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


JAN  13 1991 


GECl?  1555 
RECEIVED 


NUV  2  L 


CIRCULATION  DEPT. 


DEC  1  8  1996 


CIRCULATION  DEPT. 


910356 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


v*"'  r 


